Chess will never be solved, here's why

#2911
"Can you prove it was a proof of the Big Bang?"
++ That is not the topic of this thread. Georges Lemaître thought of the Big Bang to explain certain observed phenomena e.g. the red shift of starlight. The theory predicted microwave radiation and this was indeed observed by WMAP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang 

#2910

"You have not presented facts as to why he was right"
++ I have presented facts and figures, based on the Gourion paper, on the proofs of Checkers and Losing Chess, on AlphaZero autoplay, on ICCF games, expert opinions etc. From that I have deduced he was right.

"given your incorrect interpretation of what he said"
++ I interpreted correctly, you give an alternative, incorrect interpretation.

"a clear understanding of what Sveshnikov actually said."
++ Why would you understand Sveshnikov more clearly? 

"He didn't claim that chess could be solved in five years." ++ He did! 

"He merely claimed he could move investigations forward." ++ No, not merely that.

"That's what the word "towards" means." ++ No, towards is the direction.

"It often turns out that people disagreeing with me are wrong to do so, because I have a good general knowledge and the intelligence to use it well."
++  So people who diasgree with you are wrong, have neither general knowledge nor intelligence?

"For instance, if you don't agree with what I set out in the previous paragraph then you'd be wrong to disagree" ++ Now, this is a convincing argument. "Why?" "Because I said so."

"because what I stated is logically and factually correct" ++ And all who disagree with you are logically and factually incorrect?

"We're talking about something very different from chess analysis."
++ No, weakly solving chess is the ultimate chess analysis.

"You mean the kind of analysis we attempt when we're playing and also attempt in between games."
++ No, I mean analysis like in adjourned games, like post mortem analysis of grandmaster games and like ICCF correspondence, opening analysis, and endgame analysis.

"That's an interpretation rather mischievously placed on it by yourself. Your own interpretation, to support your own beliefs, which were probably not shared by Sveshnikov."
++ I can with more right say the same about your interpretation

"There's nothing in his sentence about that"
++ Again: Sveshnikov himself in full:
"Chess is an exact mathematical problem. The solution comes from two sides: the opening and the endgame. The middlegame does not exist. The middlegame is a well-studied opening. An opening should result in an endgame.... Give me five years, good assistants and modern computers, and I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess. I feel that power."

#2913

"His thesis on his M Math was in the field of astronomy but his PhD in Condensed Matter Physics makes him more qualified than anyone here, wouldn't you say?"
++ No, I would not say that, but that is besides the point.

"So if you believe Sveshnikov over chess solutions, then perhaps you should believe my son over the Big Bang?"
++ I must admit that I was surprised by the Sveshnikov claim when I first read it. I believed it after I checked facts and figures myself.
No, I believe Lemaître and others over your estimated son over the Big Bang. When your son has grounds to reject the Big Bang, then he should write a paper on that and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

#2918
""towards a full solution""
++ That is not what Sveshnikov wrote. He wrote:
"I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess."

#2919

"What??"
++ It is a deep insight. It may be surprising at first, but it shows how well he understood chess.

"As a mathematician I point out that it is necessary to deal with all 20 opening moves for white, with over 400 opening variations after 3 ply and so on."
++ I disagree.
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game- theoretic value against any opposition" - Prof. em. J. van den Herik.
'Any opposition' does not mean 'any move': the move must oppose, i.e. resist against, achieving the game-theoretic value.

Mistake here:
from this post:  https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=146#comment-68810283
"Also, as an aside, it often turns out that people disagreeing with me are wrong to do so, because I have a good general knowledge and the intelligence to use it well."
Again - from the same person.  
Has anybody in this forum ever fallen for this kind of assertion?

"Seems your problem is lack of understanding of what a proof is."
That was addressed to @tygxc I believe.
Who can always counter with the phrase: 'weakly' solving.
By invoking the word 'weakly' - he can and does and will continue to circumvent issues of 'proof'. 
Then - the issue might become semantics of the phrase 'weakly solving'.
The definition of which isn't Ordained anywhere.
"Weakly solving" could be anything that anyone or his grandmother wants it to be.

And we had:

There is some validity in what Elroch is saying there.  
But there's this next too:

"As for 'weakly solved' - that could mean almost anything."
Then there was this reply from @tygxc :
++ No, Prof. Em. van den Herik has defined it precisely:
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"

Whatever den Herik's credentials are does not make him Ordainer of what a definition of something is to be for anybody else.
It does not make him Creator of dictionaries not that dictionaries should be regarded as bibles in any case.  
Nor does a mini-religion need to be made out of the subject of 'solving' chess.

But looking at ty's post a little more ...
ty is claiming 'has defined it precisely' ...  suggesting that it is for him @tygxc to decide what is 'precisely' and also that 'weakly solving' would have a Unique definition.  Which doesn't follow.  
If the forum title had been 'chess will never be Weakly solved' - then people could disagree right away and even claim chess was 'solved' 100 years ago with no computers necessary.
Coming up on 3000 posts - is the discussion to revolve around semantics of the word 'weakly'?
But other things have come out though - like the two positions that computer engines are erroneously assigning as wins.
That most players would find to be draws.  And quickly find to be.
Which is a crippling blow to computers 'solving' chess 
(and the reply could almost be predicted 'such positions would not come up in 'normal reasonable' chess' with attempted linkages with 'weakly' and ven den Herik ' ...

I have never denied that; the problem is how and how much you rely on that "knowledge" to solve chess.

As I said, you are the only one who thinks you have demonstrated such a thing.

The problem is the meaning you give to that "any opposition". I provided a paper that explains clearly what authors think is the meaning of that definition. I asked you to provide a paper where van den Herik's definition is interpreted in your way.

You have used the very same argument you criticize, even in the very same post now.

If you lived in Europe before 1790 you would have concluded that black swans did not exist. You even contradict yourself:

As for your theory as a whole, science is based on agreement: if someone says s/he is scientific, while everybody else thinks the opposite, s/he can be a misunderstood genius, a fool, or someone who tries to deceive people to gain some kind of advantage (or even just for the hell of it). We can try to fight disinformation as we can, but it is not even our responsibility to prove you wrong; that's an argument used by pseudoscientists. The burden of proof is on the claimant and what you call proofs are not proofs for our standards, nor you can prove they are for scientists' standards outside this thread, because you said you have not published anything on the subject. There cannot be with you any real discussion about a theory to provide a proven solution for chess, if there is not even agreement on the criteria to prove something.

"There cannot be with you any real discussion about a theory to provide a proven solution for chess, if there is not even agreement on the criteria to prove something."
I agree with @Haiaku on that - and I"m thinking that @tygxc doesn't intend to change his mind about any of this ...  
but on the other hand the posts of @tygxc have been catalysts for other things.
Various things coming out about subjects related to 'solving'. 

We don't know all the laws of physics, nor the exact structure of the universe, so theories about it are just more or less accurate models. They are in fact approximations and scientists have understood that long ago. You know that QM and GR do not explain everything and likely they will be superseded, as others theories before.

But solving chess is another thing. We know all the laws (the rules) of the game and its structure (64 squares, 32 pieces...), and the number of positions and possible games is finite; thus an exact solution must exist. When a game is announced weakly solved (in the game-theoretic meaning), nobody really expects that some day that solution will be falsified. The only way to be sure of that is to test a strategy (which provides a move every turn) against all the possible opponent's replies, or to provide a general theorem (even by mathematical but only mathematical induction) that encompasses all the possible situations a player can face along the path, no exception. The latter seems impossible, considering the game complexity, so a solution has to rely on computations to provide the first type of proof. Heuristics provide strategies to be tested in an ordered fashion (so e.g. if a strategy wins from a position, no need to search for something better), but if they cut off lines according to a non exact evaluation (that is, not a tablebase hit or a 3-fold repetition), the strategy is not 100% reliable. The greater the number of non-exact cutoffs, the greater the risk the "solution" will be falsified later.

What does "no, I don't think it exists" even mean?  That you do not believe a solution can exist?  That you disagree that a full 32-man tablebase would be a valid solution if it were ever achieved?

The point is valid.  Every discrete piece of knowledge needed to solve chess and a valid method for solving it already exist, the solution is just not achievable until some pretty large breakthroughs that will likely not occur in our lifetimes are made.  What you are saying is like saying that is is impossible to count the grains of sand on a beach...but it *is* quite obviously possible, just entirely infeasible at present.

I would say that the method of constructing the tablebases is already a solution. The tablebases don't actually need to be constructed. We have in fact always had a solution of chess.

That's why I inserted the word "timely" in my definition of a solution. 

For example the checkers solution needs about two minutes to return a move, so it wouldn't be much use in a ten minute blitz game (if they have such things in draughts). 

Asking someone to go through the 32 man tablebase construction process similarly wouldn't be much use in a ten minute blitz game of chess.

A solution is only a solution if it's timely for the purpose for which it's required.

It's Zermelo's theorem in game theory. So if the game value is a win, a win can be forced, otherwise both players can force a draw.

Of course its valid.  
The logic of the point is valid. 
The number of possible chess positions is finite - therefore a solution exists.
Where whoever might go wrong on that - is to believe that since a solution hasn't been found - 'it doesn't exist' ...  that is illogical.
A solution can exist - before it is found.
Claiming its not so is similiar to the error claiming a tree falling in the forest 'doesn't make sound' unless someone is around to hear it.
Of Course the falling tree makes sound Anyway !   

"Mathematics"  doesn't care if something hasn't been found yet.
The ratio pi is the same too - whether there's people around or not.
That ratio doesn't need people around - to be the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

Regarding those who don't understand - they're ignoring the significance of the 'finite' part. 
Not grasping the nature of that fact.
But that's their choice. 
There are no 'Thought Police'   

Can anybody do somebody else's thinking for them?
The short answer is no -
but to understand the nature of 'finite' there ...
consider hypothically if there were 'infinite' chess positions - then in that imaginary case it could be argued that chess could never be solved because there would always be more positions to solve.
By itself would that be enough to prove the converse?
Not quite.
But the point about finite - (this is a hint - since there's no 'Vulcan mind meld') ...  is that eventually - given enough time - positions to solve would be 'run out of'.   
Can semantics of words like 'inductive' substitute for mathematical reasoning and logic ?
People who try to use semantics alone to reason - might run into errors of illogic.
Often it occurs that people who excel in subjects like English and History - do poorly in math. 
English and history would be considered 'humanities' I believe.
Does it matter?  Chess is a subject of leisure I'd say - not of necessity.

Invalid claims do get attention though.
That part works.  
And illogic is more entertaining than logic.
Hollywood exploits that all the time !

#2925

'"Towards" tablebases literally means towards a full solution.'
++ I interpret is as starting from the opening and working towards i.e. in the direction of the 7-men endgame table base, as opposed to strongly solving chess by generating 32-men table bases starting from the 7-men endgame table base and working towards i.e. in the direction of the opening.

'I'm trying to be generous to Sveshnikov but I must admit "and 'close' chess" sounds very much like your interpretation.' ++ Yes, I think so too.

"In that case it was clearly an empty claim, which he would never have been capable of carrying out: and so you've chosen to believe a completely empty claim."
++ I do not think it is an empty claim and certainly not clearly. I believe he could have carried it out given the modern computers and the good assistants. 

"I wonder why you imagine he could have done it."
++ I admit when reading it first I found it hard to believe, but after thinking more and checking some facts & figures I believe he was spot on.

"Bobby Fischer made various claims, which tended towards subjectivity, such as the "best by test" garbage."
++ Most of Fischer's claims turned out right too. Apparently the participants of the Yekaterinburg Candidates' also believed his "1 e4 best by test": 1 e4 was both played more and with better results than 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3 combined. Also 'the King's Gambit loses by force' was vindicated by AlphaZero and Kramnik.

"As well as holding various political opinions, which were rather off the rails."
++ Political and religious beliefs do not disqualify opinions on other subjects. A good example was Nobel prize winner Schockley. Alekhine and Karjakin are other examples.

"Sveshnikov's claim is not a chess-related claim at all."
++ It is a chess-related claim, it is about chess analysis, that was his job.

"It's a computing-related one."
++ No, it is not computing-related. His 'good assistants' should be grandmasters or even better ICCF grandmasters, skilled in chess analysis with engines. They must use the engines, not create them. The good assistants must understand chess so as to prepare the 26-men tabiya for calculation and so as to halt calculations when a known drawn endgame of >7 men is reached, like the 2 ICCF WC example games I posted.

"He is/was not a particular expert in computing"
++ He was an expert in chess analysis. He was so before engines existed, and he still was so after engines emerged. We won the world senior chess championship. He wrote the ultimate books on the Sveshnikov Variation, the Kasashnikov Variation, the French Advance Variation, and the Alapin Variation.

"otherwise he would not have made the false claim"
++ This is a circular reasoning. You think his claim is false. Because you think so you consider the claim false is true. Because of that you conclude Sveshnikov was no expert. I turn this the other way. Sveshnikov was an expert at chess analysis with and without engines. Therefore his claim is true. Therefore you are wrong dismissing his claim. Therefore you are no expert at chess analysis.

"You see, you have managed to persuade me that he probably did make the false claim. I had assumed he didn't."
++ Now comes the second part: managing to persuade you that his claim is not false and thus you were right assuming he did not make a false claim.

I have great respect for Sveshnikov as a chess player and researcher. I have no fewer than three full length books on the Sicilian variation he breathed new life into. As for the ageing Sveshnikov as computational game theory researcher, well, he just doesn't cut it. He has no publications and no background of the sort of formal discipline needed. He is 100% focussed on the competitive game and practical chess to the extent that he seems even to be unable to realise that more rigour is required in game theory.

My understanding of the character of his viewpoint is that he reckons that past experience of chess, consisting of large numbers of games not a single one of which is KNOWN to be optimal is sufficient to ignore the move 1. a4 as inferior.  This is ok for practical chess but entirely inadequate for game theory. There is no room for compromise. To prove chess is a draw it is NECESSARY to PROVE black can draw against 1. a4, not just assume this without anything close to an adequate argument.

[Note: sadly Sveshnikov died in August 2021 from complications of Covid-19. He will be long remembered and respected as a chess player and writer].

#2930
'the problem is how and how much you rely on that "knowledge" to solve chess.'
++ IMHO the knowledge cannot be incorporated into an evaluation function: we know from Stockfish vs. LC0 that thin nodes i.e. deep calculation with a lean evaluation function beats thick nodes i.e. shallow calculation with an elaborate evaluation function. 
IMHO knowledge should be incorporated by the 'good assistants' to prune the search tree. They should prepare the relevant 26-men tabiya for calculation. They should prune known inferior possibilities like 1 a4 or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 and handle transpositions. They should also stop the calculation when an known drawn endgame of > 8 men is reached, like with opposite colored bishops or rook endings 4-4 or 4-3 on one wing.

"you are the only one who thinks you have demonstrated such a thing."
++ OK, let me be the only one. Let all others then come up with another way to explain the available data.

"If you lived in Europe before 1790 you would have concluded that black swans did not exist." ++ It is impossible to prove non-existence of unicorns, Martians, the Loch Ness monster etc. However statistics is extensively used in many sciences and in industry to draw conclusions about a larger set by sampling a subset. That is also what Tromp did to arrive at his 10^44 legal chess positions.

As for your theory as a whole, science is based on agreement: if someone says s/he is scientific, while everybody else thinks the opposite, s/he can be a misunderstood genius, a fool, or someone who tries to deceive people to gain some kind of advantage (or even just for the hell of it).
++ The everybody else (or rather the other 5) may also be unscientific, fools, or people who try to deceive people to gain some kind of advantage (or even just for the hell of it) or people unable or unwilling to accept certain facts & figures. E.g. while that would lead to a conclusion they dislike. 'I do not want chess to be solved.' -> 'Chess cannot be solved.' -> 'Whoever says differently must be unscientific / a fool / a deceptive person / a liar / an autist.' -> 'Whatever he says must be obviously / clearly / blatantly wrong / a lie / ridiculous...'

"it is not even our responsibility to prove you wrong"
++ It is not my responsibility to prove anything either. I try to the best of my abilities. People can claim without proof. "Chess is a draw", "1 e4 best by test", "King's Gambit loses by force" are Fischer's claims without proof which I believe to be true.

"The burden of proof is on the claimant"
++ The claimant GM Sveshnikov is dead. I kind of load his burden on my shoulders.

"what you call proofs are not proofs for our standards, nor you can prove they are for scientists' standards outside this thread" ++ Assessing the feasibility does not require any proof in the purist sense: plausibility is enough.

"you have not published anything on the subject" ++ No, I have not and I do not intend to. I have never worked in the field of game theory and do not intend to.

"There cannot be with you any real discussion about a theory to provide a proven solution for chess, if there is not even agreement on the criteria to prove something."
++ In this thread there is no agreement on anything: not on definitions, not on the meaning of words in a dictionary, not on facts, not on figures, not on the Laws of Chess. This is a public forum free for all, it requires no scientific degree or chess rating.