Why do we make unprincipled moves in Chess?

@Brian-E said in #10:
> I'm guessing that you're a pure mathematician!
I have studied pure mathematics.

> I've been taken to task before for saying something in a Mathematics forum like "X is probably the case" when X is a mathematical statement whose truth or falsehood is currently unknown. No, I was told, either X is true or X is false, period.
>
> But chess is a human activity and I think we're allowed to look at it through our human lens and judge things based on imperfect knowledge.

It's fine to jugde chess based on imperfect knowledge. But it should be made clear that it is a judgement and not exact knowledge.

If we define probability for mathematical statements, there will be nothing wrong in "X is probably true". A way to estimate probability is required though.

We are curious creatures.
Some swim with sharks when logic says "dont."
Some hike active volcanoes.
Take pictures of bears.
Date redheads....... :/

@Brian-E said in #10:
> I've been taken to task before for saying something in a Mathematics forum like "X is probably the case" when X is a mathematical statement whose truth or falsehood is currently unknown. No, I was told, either X is true or X is false, period.

Indeed, we use the same language for randomness and uncertainty. But, I wonder if random and uncertainty are actually different things. Consider this thought experiment. Take a regular, six-sided die, with each side equally likely to turn up when you roll it. If you roll the die, there is a 1/6 chance that a three will show up. But now put the die under a cup and shake it around to randomize it. There is now one side up on the die, and this doesn't change. But can we say "there is a 1/6 chance that the die is showing a three?" In this case, the result is already determined, but why can we say "there is a 1/6 chance that the die will roll a three" in the first situation, but not in the second?

@AsDaGo That reminds me of Schrödinger's cat.

@drSabrotna said in #13:
> We are curious creatures.
> Some swim with sharks when logic says "dont."
> Some hike active volcanoes.
> Take pictures of bears.
> Date redheads....... :/
Some Super GMs play the bongcloud :)

Stockfish, Magnus, and I have never, ever won a game with Black before, not at all, ever, kid. I mean the King's Indian Defense or a young child however you want to look at it.

Hopefully someone plays an 'unprincipled' bongcloud at the ongoing candidates.

@Youcandothis said in #7:
> Chess is not a solved game so we can't know if chess is a draw given perfect play.

Every try reading more than one thread? To be nice though I have examples in my studies as well as a recent topic of my arrival. There is a book called 'Black is ok forever'. Has anyone proved that wrong?

God would not create something without a solution to it. Though Chess is created by a human making it far worse/better depending how you look at it.

@Clearchesser said in #19:
> [...] There is a book called 'Black is ok forever'. Has anyone proved that wrong?

That book is one of a series of books on the theme "Black is OK..." by the late András Adorján who presents evidence on the subject from the point of view of practical human play. But no-one has proven anything one way or another as regards the theoretical outcome of the game. That is the point.

> God would not create something without a solution to it. Though Chess is created by a human making it far worse/better depending how you look at it.

No-one has suggested that no solution exists. Only that we currently do not know what that solution is, and quite possibly never will.