Chess will never be solved, here's why

#2036
"If White wins in any of these lines, it would require no less time, because the engine should check White's strategy against all the reasonable alternatives for Black (you say that), not just one."
++ That does not happen: white does not win in any of these lines. If you just let Stockfish autoplay at reasonable time even on your desktop then you end with... a draw. That is empirical evidence, not proof. So the setup can assume it does not happen. In the unlikely case it would happen, the calculation must stop and the good assistants must step in and investigate what is happening.

#2060

"By including three more candidate moves - errors thus get divided by 1000 trillion ??"
For 1 candidate move:   1 error in 10^5 positions.
For 2 candidate moves: 1 error in 10^5 * 10^5 = 10^10 positions.
For 3 candidate moves: 1 error in 10^5 * 10^10 = 10^15 positions.
For 4 candidate moves: 1 error in 10^5 * 10^15 = 10^20 positions.

'"error" might be poorly defined too.'
++ error = move that turns a drawn position into a lost position

"because the computer is only following formulaic instructions from human programmers."
++ No, AlphaZero got no other instructions but the rules of the game

"In tactical situations - supercomputers would be great.  Fantastic."But what about 'positional' ?"
++ Positional = tactical at more depth

"There may be several 'best' moves in such positions. And several 'second rate' moves."
++ There are only two kinds of moves: good moves and errors.
Good move = move that turns a drawn position into another drawn position
Error = move that turns a drawn position into a lost position

"The computer is assigning numerical differences to evaluate positional moves according to obscure minor technical points which may have little to do with 'best move'."
++ The computer essentially counts the material in pawn units with some tweeks. This is a good approximation for the middle game. It is totally flawed in endgames, like KNN vs. KP.

#2068
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition
https://web.archive.org/web/20170912011410/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8296/bc0ab855841088b31190c9f2923951853d7b.pdf 

Your mum will never be solved

No it doesn't.

The White strategy

         Play 1.Qa7+

achieves the game theoretic value against any opposition. Is that a weak solution of that initial position?

I already pointed that out. Do you read the posts addressed to you?

If you're proposing to find to find a weak solution of "chess" it would probably be a good idea to find out first what "weak solution" means.

Edit: Fixed position.

As I already said, I was just following your reasoning:

Did you change your mind? Fine, it's a draw, then. But that does not answer the question I asked the last time (and thrice before):

@MARattigan, an objection can be made to your last post, but I will leave it to @tygxc 😁

Yes, will fix.

Extrapolation is not necessarily at all reliable. There is not even a unique way to do it, especially from (absurdly) two data points! (Transform the values using a wide range of monotone functions to get pretty much any answer you want).

But neither would it be reliable with 100 data points unless you know the form of the relationship. You don't.

Thanks for clarifying that those numbers of yours must be ignored.

Fascinating. 

How did they work out the error rate? Have they beaten you to it?

(And were the games played under basic rules with the addition of a double repetition rule. If not that would have a significant effect on the error rate.)

When one side is winning, a strategy is only required for that side to have a weak solution. That is the case here, so there is no need for a strategy for white.

A weak solution requires a black strategy that will reach a win against any white defense.

I know that and you know that, but going by his definition @tygxc doesn't.

It should read:

weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined for a player with a best game-theoretic value to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition

But since you don't know the game-theoretic value until you have a real solution, that's not very useful.

Better:

weakly solved means that for the initial position either a timely strategy has been determined for one player that achieves a win against any opposition, or a timely strategy has been determined for both players that avoids a loss against any opposition. 

Edit: Added the word "timely" to the definition in the last paragraph. Otherwise there is the obvious solution of just trying out all possible continuations up to a maximum length of the number of possible positions. 

#2079
I used the definition by Prof. van den Herik and I gave a reference to his paper.
Personally I prefer a simpler, more practical definition but then I get reproached of using my own definitions instead of the generally accepted ones, which is what you do here.
You even find fault with his generally accepted definition.
I am glad I am not the only one being critiqued.
You should take your criticism to prof. van den Herik this time.

#2077

"How did they work out the error rate?"
++ They did not: they gave the draw rate at 1 s/move and at 1 min/move. Games that do not draw are sure to contain 1 error. Further I assumed 40 moves hence 80 ply per game. Then I extrapolated from 1 s/move and 1 min/move to 1 h/move and to 60 h/move.

"were the games played under basic rules with the addition of a double repetition rule"
++ That does not matter at all. The result would be exactly the same.

With respect to Prof. van den Herik, the definition is flawed.

I think I showed that in #2072 - can you find any fault with it?

You'd do better to use the definition I gave in the last para. of #2079. I think everyone could agree to that one.

#2084
I work on the generally accepted hypothesis that chess is a draw. Hence each decisive game must contain 1 error. As the error rate is that low, the occurence of 2 or more errors is even rarer and can be neglected.
Your examples KNN vs. KP only highlight the failure of the evaluation function. KNN vs. KP is +5. KNN vs. K is +6, but is a draw. The evaluation function prefers a +6 draw over a +5 win.

As the error rate is what low?

You think SF14 can't handle a couple of knight's and a pawn, but when it gets to 4 rooks, 4 knights, 4 bishops, 2 queens and 16 pawns that should be ok then?

(And when SF14 converted from  KNN vs. KP to KNN vs. K in most cases it wasn't a +5 win in the competition rules game for which SF14 is designed. It was alread a draw under competition rules, so taking the pawn to ensure no Black win and give the remote possibility of a KNNK vs K win for White was the most sensible option.)

#2086

"As the error rate is what low?"
++ At 1 s/move: 88.2% draw = 11.8% error / game = 1 error / 679 positions
At 1 min/move: 97.7% draw = 2.3% error / game = 1 error / 3478 positions
Extrapolating: at 60 h/move: 1 error / 10^5 positions

"You think SF14 can't handle a couple of knight's and a pawn, but when it gets to 4 rooks, 4 knights, 4 bishops, 2 queens and 16 pawns that should be ok then?"
++ It is not Stockfish, it is its evaluation function that is flawed.
If Stockfish just can calculate to the 7-men endgame table base then its result is exact.
KNN vs. KP highlights the failure of the evaluation function, not of Stockfish.
We know that the evaluation function is unsuitable for KNN vs. KP.
Stockfish itself is overwhelmed by positions with more than 26 men, when chess is most difficult. That is why the good assistants should prepare 26-men tabiya as starting points.
If you want to verify that the table base exact move is within the top 4 Stockfish candidate moves, then KRPP vs. KRP may be better.