Chess will never be solved, here's why

You make good posts Cy.
And you're right. Its not understood.
A lot is known about the brain and how it works.
But - a lot is Not known.
And that gets a lot of the attention. Including in science.
Research into the unknown and talking about it.
In defiance of Wittgenstein perhaps. Was he bonkers?
'If we do not know of it we should not speak of it'. Something like that.
But that happens constantly. The unknown is a big subject.

Interesting. They tweaked it to adjust.

Yes, the way to defeat old engines was simple. All you had to do was choose to play the Stonewall Attack. There are lines where a significant breakthrough occurs against black's K, in exchange for counterplay by black on the Q-side. All that had to be done is make the winning sacrifice 12 full moves (maybe 10 against weak engines) ahead of the killing breakthrough, when it would only show up as a significant plus for white a move or two later. The Stonewall Attack was extremely suitable for that, because the rigid type of pawn structure creates an obstacle to bringing defensive forces to bear in time to save the game.

I think there's evidence that he was bonkers. He was a schoolteacher and used excessive physical punishment against his pupils. He was from a very wealthy family and didn't need to work. It's possible that he took that job for a very unpleasant reason, which we can work out.

Looking at his work, it was very simple but meticulously worked out. However, it simply consisted of a lengthy exposition on reality, which any intelligent person could perform. He changed it all at some point in his life, disagreeing with the earlier W.

Interesting ideas? Yes, I think so. Definitely thought provoking.
Over-rated by many? Without doubt.
Bertrand Russell was a logician and logical positivist, although AI currently states that he was not the latter. Russell helped to found logical positivism and later in his life, he started to see its limitations. A positivist is someone who builds logical structure or propositions only on empirical observations and data.

Wittgenstein was Russell's protege, who got into the famous argument with Karl Popper, the World famous philosopher of science. As I recall, it was over something to do with perception and reality. Popper's views were more common sense and he said he'd refuted some proposition which W claimed couldn't be refuted by kicking something very hard. They didn't seem to like each other very much.

So "If we do not know of it" etc is problematic, since "we" is problematic. Is "we" fully inclusive or maybe confined to those with rarified knowledge of "it"? Stepping further into the dark, is "we" really at the behest and the expression of some form of authority? The Church, the Law, the Sovereign, Monarch, Prime Minister or President? Maybe an eminent scientist or professor? Knowing something about W's character, we are entitled to criticise his ideas on "if we don't know of it, we should not speak of it". I'm sure it referred to religious ideas and so forth but not speaking of something is no way to discuss it and if we don't discuss it, we might become obsessed with it, whatever that "it" is.

The rules under discussion are also imposed in any human tournament. Such tweaking was effectively no different than any human GM talking to his team or other GMs between games and doing his own engine analysis between rounds to prepare. Which, of course, Kapraov and team did. Were they also "cheating"?

Disagree. "Effectively the same" isn't the same as an effective similarity which itself doesn't mean "identical".

Responding to both posts and yes it does seem that Ludwig W. was 'bonkers'.
You're confirming it. Edit: That it 'seems' so. Just seems though.
Another british expression: 'crackers'.
-----------------------------
Regarding Ludwig becoming Russell's protege and his career at Cambridge university - 
I decided just now to look up that career and the beating incident in Austria.
His connection to Bertrand Russell reminds me of Einstein's connection with Minkowski - who was Einstein's professor.
That was also quite a connection.
Becoming late at night where you are - coming up to 4pm here.
---------------
Regarding 'we' in the context of Wittgenstein's statement and reference to 'religion' - yes that could explain it.
He couldn't have been 'very bonkers'.
Established professor at Cambridge?
Might find out next why he chose England instead of Austria for his university education.

A corporation has no incentive to offer another chance when they have achieved their goal. Alpha Zero "defeated" Stockfish in a closed lab under undisclosed settings, yet still claimed to be the top chess engine in 4hrs of training, which was their goal.

Let's not pretend this was exploiting Kasparov. He wanted the publicity (and the purse) himself, had won the first match, and went out of his way to take actions that he imagined would embarrass IBM the second time by intentionally playing garbage he thought would fool the engine. He just didn't (and still doesn't) understand much about hardware/software and did not know how big the jump would be from the prior engine he played. He also did not understand how Joel Benjamin would be able to help IBM learn to tweak the engine valuations effectively.

A hard lesson to learn, but again...it was inevitable, with desktop PC engines soundly beating Kramnik within 5 years, so the handwringing about the match falls apart in retrospect. IBM did not have any need to "cheat" to win that match (for those that still hang onto that opinion). IBM used 64 mainframe computer processors worth millions to build Deep Blue, and they dismantled Deep Blue and used those boards afterwards in hardware sold to customers. They could not really have rebuilt it, nor could they afford to let tens of millions in hardware sit around after playing a chess match.

It is the same. You just don't like that a man vs. machine match was not rigged to favor the man by allowing him to consult with whomever he pleased and run engine analysis himself between rounds while forcing Deep Blue to remain static.

I understand that the man vs. the machine trope invokes a fear of becoming superfluous ( I mean that was the primary draw of the match for viewers, to cheer for humanity to triumph) for people that don't live and breathe computing, but nothing that went on here was unreasonable at all.

@Optimissed
You mentioned he was from a rich family.
So I looked that up.
Extremely rich. His dad a steel magnate.
Shocking: three of his brothers apparently committed suicide.
Shocking: After World I - Ludwig gave away his inheritance to surviving siblings.
He was the youngest of 8.
----------------------------------
And regarding 'tweaking of the computer' between games if that's what they did that's not 'personal'. Its objective information.

Agreed, player. Sane enough to perform correctly in his role and to become eminent in his field. I did know why he didn't stay in Austria. I have a feeling there was some problem for him and he had to get out of Austria but can't remember what and I have to get to bed because, as you say, it's midnight and I have to be up tomorrow for a 25 minute walk into town and the Saturday morning chess club, after grinding the coffee beans by hand because the machine's broken and brewing some coffee and having a shave and ....... you know, maybe there were repercussions from hitting that kid or whatever he did. Can't remember. Goodnight.

There's a distinct uptick in actual information and facts in your post here, kudos there, but...I can predict you are going to fall into the same trap other posters have with AI.

Goodnight. Enjoy tomorrow at the club and the healthy walk.
His father was extremely rich - and Ludwig was the youngest of eight kids.
Going to England was apparently Ludwig's idea. Well before the war.
The incident was after.
See you next time.

During the course of a match any human player will adjust their play as they see what their opponent is doing. Why should a computer be different? Without "human input" a computer will not be able to play chess (or do anything else) at all. Players that listen to bad advice often lose.

Relevant point. Again I think its interesting.
Human intervention to tweak the play is 'outside assistance and guidance'?
But on the other hand - players are allowed to get coaching from multiple players between tournament games.
Is tweaking equivalent to coaching? Should they be compared?
'good advice' that the computer 'must follow'.

Yea gonna have to disagree with you on the merging with machines thing.

wow 1000 chats🤩