Chess will never be solved, here's why

Chess theoretically can be solved, though that won’t diminish chess as a game. People who follow the engine simply get banned, and humans cannot solve it on their own. So don’t worry, chess will be here for a long, long time. But talking mathematically, computers can crack chess. Hopefully, the community won’t find it boring.

I believe @tygxc still doesn't understand that the game theory of chess and the solution of chess fall into the scope of combinatorial mathematics (specifically the theory of finite combinatorial games of perfect information). Mathematics always requires proofs, not scientific induction.

Regarding the models of science, if you study chess scientifically, the Popper model could be appropriate, since propositions are boolean and there is no underlying fundamental uncertainty.  However, with this model you will never solve chess without being rigorous. Rather you will have a hypothesis that has not been disproven. The point is that even if you choose a scientific viewpoint rather than the more appropriate mathematical one, you can't justify the sort of claims @tygxc makes, since science never "solves" problems like "does an object with properties X exist" without exhibiting one. Failing to find one is like an incomplete solution of chess: it just gives you confidence, but doesn't answer the question definitively.  (The relevant object here is a strategy for each side that gives the optimal result). Note also that exhibiting an object without being able to prove it has the properties required is equally inconclusive.

Better still to recognise that solving chess is a COMBINATORIAL problem, and the only solution is a rigorous one.

Indeed, it can be dangerous to say that natural sciences do not prove anything: the "man in the street" might think that a charlatan is as reliable as any scientist. I think that the problem can be overcome stating that science gives the most accurate representations of known phenomena, and the most reliable predictions, even if concepts cannot be said definitively proven. After all, Einstein is considered universally a genius, even if his models are not (and probably will never be) called "laws". Hopefully people are getting used to that.

It will be shown some day (maybe hundreds of years from now) that it is either a forced win or draw.

You can show it already. All somebody has to do is resign and it's a forced win.

#3104
"I don't even know what you mean by "absolute knowledge". "
++ AlphaZero was fed nothing but the Laws of Chess, or axioms in your lingo. It then calculated i.e. performed a large number of boolean operations. Thus it acquired chess knowledge. Thus that acquired knowledge follows logically from the axioms.

AlphaZero yields near 100% draws in autoplay. With more time closer to 100%. That disproves the hypotheses that chess is a forced win for white or for black and sustains that chess is a draw. Even if the axioms are changed to stalemate = win trying to make chess more decisive, that same observation persists. So from the axioms follows by a huge number of logical operations that the game-theoretic value of chess cannot be a win and thus is a draw.

AlphaZero reinivented both antiquated lines like the Berlin and hypermodern lines like the Grünfeld Indian Defence. So a promising strategy in weakly solving chess is to aim for a Berlin Defence against 1 e4 and for a Grünfeld Indian Defence against 1 d4. That is also what most ICCF grandmasters nowadays do.

AlphaZero ranks all 20 possible first moves. From these follows that 1 a4 is not better than 1 d4 or 1 e4. Thus 1 a4 can be disregarded in the weak solution as trivial.

Now purely human reasoning. From Laws of Chess i.e. axioms 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 follows that all pieces except rooks control more squares from the central squares d4, e4, d5, e5 than from any other square. Thus follows that control over those central squares is important. 1 d4 and 1 e4 accomplish that strategic goal. 1 a4 does not. Thus 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4. Thus 1 a4 can be disregarded. It is possible that 1 a4 is a draw just like 1 d4 or 1 e4, but it is not possible that 1 d4 and 1 e4 draw and 1 a4 wins. So 1 a4 does not oppose to black drawing.

Also from the laws of chess i.e. axioms follows that an advantage of 1 pawn is per 4.6 ceteris paribus sufficient to win. Thus an advantage of 1 piece is ceteris paribus sufficient to win too: trade the extra piece for a pawn. There are many exceptions. Now 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses a bishop. There is no compensation of any kind. So that position is lost for white. So the line 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 can be disregarded. 2 Ba6 does not even draw, it loses. So it does not oppose to black drawing.

#3111
"Better still to recognise that solving chess is a COMBINATORIAL problem, and the only solution is a rigorous one."
++ Game theory is not pure combinatorial. For example the number of possible positions is combinatorial, but the number of legal positions includes the Laws of Chess.
The Laws of Chess form a set of axioms.
For how a solution should look, look at how Losing Chess has been solved.
Chess is a more complicated version of Losing Chess.

#3104
"I do not know Russian too, but I think he would have used too words, like in English. To me, it is not clear at all that he meant a real weak solution, especially because the word "close" is enclosed in scare quotes. Why use them?"
++ Weakly solved game is jargon. Nobody understands that if not accompanied by the precise definition of Van den Herik / Allis. Russian for solved game is: Ничейная смерть. As far as I understand that would literally mean 'killed game', but that would be an inappropriate expression. Solved game may convey a meaning of using some solvent. So I get why the interviewer wrote 'close' chess, where the '' indicate that the word choice is special. From the context it is clear 'close' means weakly solved.

#3101
"Being good at gymnastics doesn't make someone an authority on biophysics."
++ Weakly solving chess is the ultimate chess analysis. That is what Sveshnikov did for a job. He was one of the best in the world at that. He was an excellent player, in his youth on par with Karpov, but he had to quit competitive playing at top level after he was diagnosed with 3rd stage cancer in 1984. Then he published his analysis of his Sveshnikov variation B33 in 1988. He kept working as an analyst, first without computer and then with computers. He became world champion 65+ in 2017, so he was still sharp.
So yes, Sveshnikov was an authority on weakly solving chess.

What do you mean by "absolute"? Do you understand that that knowledge is based on probabilities? Just one exception can dramatically change the expected score of a move.

No, as won games do not disprove the hypothesis that the game value is a draw. That is because it is not proven that strategies in general achieve forcingly a certain outcome. If a strategy s is supposed to force a draw, but you can show that the opponent can force a win, then it is disproven that s can force a draw.

All the other "deductions" in your post are in fact just repetitions of jumps to conclusions about what can be disregarded.

#3126

It is not your right to spread false information...

"Sveshnikov never made it to the candidates" ++ That is true, but in his younger years he played team competitions the board before Karpov. Sveshnikov got cancer and that is why he had to stop playing at top level.

"he never was a Seniors+ World Champion"
++ He was.

"At 2016 he was playing at board 1 of the Russian 65+ team, which won gold, and he managed  6/8 - hardly an achievement, given the weak opposition."

++ In 2017 he won the individual 65+ World Championship, which would have made him a GM if he not already was one.

Hi @Optimissed

it is indeed a philosophical problem, too. I can understand the objection, but many don't have that type of confidence. We have already seen ideas that seemed absolutely true, for evidence collected over centuries – if not millennia – showing their limits in light of new discoveries. I can only say that a mathematical proof would convince basically anyone, even non chess players, while I think a non-mathematical solution would not convince even just the chess community, and neither all the top players.

A good post there.
Yes - not tygxc's 'right' about his spreading of false information -
But it is an option he has - and pursues.
And while repeating his same nonsense over and over -
he manages to dress up such spam more than enough that its not seen as such blatantly enough to be acted on.

#3131
"A good post there."
++ So pfren spreads false information that Sveshnikov never was the world champion 65+, while he was world champion 65+ in 2017 and that is then a good post.

#3124

"For Sveshnikov to have been on a par with Karpov means that he was truly exceptional."
++ In his younger years Sveshnikov played team competition the board ahead of Karpov, so at that time the team captain considered Sveshnikov stronger than Karpov.
Sveshnikov had to stop play at top level because of cancer.

"working towards attaining a weak solution of chess is not something that is in any way equivalent to being one of the best chess players ever" ++ but it is equivalent to being one of the best chess analysts ever. In 1988 he had nearly weakly solved his Sveshnikov variation B33.

"The weak solution of chess is far too complex and difficult to be attained in five years."
++ That depends on the number of legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions.
I estimate that at 10^17 and gave some reasons and then 5 years suffice.

"we know that there are some people on these forums who simply are not likely to "get" what is being patiently explained to them" ++ Some do not read, some do not understand.

"Your problem is that you really do think you're cleverer than anyone else"
++ So I should think I am more stupid than everybody else?

"however would you imagine that you and only you are capable of recognising Sveshnikov's pronouncements as truth?" ++  I know something about chess, more than many here, less than Sveshnikov. I know something about science, more than most here, even more than Sveshnikov.

"you are not even making an argument, to be recognised, understood, disagreed with, ignored or whatever." ++ I made many arguments, with references, with facts, with figures.

"All you're saying is "Sveshnikov said so". ++ I said far more to back that up.

"spout some meaningless numbers" ++ What you do not understand is meaningless?

"Telling me (or others!) that I'm wrong BECAUSE I dropped out of an engineering degree in my first year" ++ No, I tell you that you have no right to call Sveshnikov a ******* as he succeeded to get a master and almost a PhD in engineering and as you are a weak player compared to him.

"Please desist" ++ Why should I not be allowed to discuss?

"Look at others who have similar difficulties in responding well to discussions."
++ I believe I always respond well, at least politely and patiently. Maybe I am too polite.

"And change!" ++ In what way? Should I start insulting people too?

Yes.

#3135

"It isn't positions that need to be analysed, but games."
++ No, there are way too many possible games, there are too many transpositions.
The number of possible games if much higher than the Shannon number 10^120.
Each position has its own evaluation draw / win / loss but can be reached from many games.

"It's impossible to assess positions accurately without treating each one as a game."
++ There is a duality between positions and games.
Each game (PGN) is a sequence of legal positions (FEN).
Each legal position (FEN) can be described by a proof game (PGN) from the initial position.
Weakly solving chess is tracing paths of drawn positions between the initial position and known 7-men table base drawn positions.

"What is necessary is to develop stronger algorithms." ++ No, AlphaZero vs. Stockfish showed that thin nodes are better than thick nodes. A simple evaluation algorithm allows to hit the 7-men endgame table base faster to lookup the absolute evaluation draw / win / loss.

"Your assumption that present ones within Stockfish suffice is incorrect" ++ No, it is correct.

"for what should be very obvious reasons"
++ So I have to prove everything and you just say 'incorrect for obvious reasons'.

"There are several arguing against you"
++ Most do not argue, but just insult or say it is incorrect.

"I'm wrong regarding games vs. positions" ++ Yes, you are

"even the so-called experts are not capable of thinking in a focussed manner."
++ Which experts? The focus is how many legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions there are. That is the time in nanoseconds and the storage in bit. I estimate 10^17 and gave my reasoning. It will only be known for sure after it has been done.

"How can you assess a position without treating it just the same as a game?"
++ By calculating forward until it hits the 7-men endgame.

"it requires different algorithms from any existing at present"
++ No, it does not. Stockfish is enough. All you need is calculate until the table base.

"you do insult people by refusing to take on board their criticisms"
++ I have patiently answered several justified and unjustified criticisms

"I could win any argument" ++ Chess is about winning and losing, a discussion is about truth.

#3138

"That's why you would have to have a database of positions reached. Yes, there are too many games, aren't there. That's why chess cannot be solved in 5 years."
++ There are two approaches: games or positions. Games is not feasible there are too many of these. Positions is feasible as there are far less of these.

"Why can't you recognise truth, when it's presented to you?" ++ I recognise truth, but that is no truth. If there are too many games does not mean it is not feasible based on positions.

"How do you determine that a position is drawn, then?" ++ By calculating until the 7-men endgame table base is hit.

"I'm saying it's impossible to accurately determine." ++ Just calculate until the table base.

"you could use a similar technique on the starting position." ++ Indeed that is what weakly solving chess is: calculating from the initial position towards the table base.

"I don't know what a thin or thick node is." ++ It is explained in the link I supplied before.
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis 

"It's also wrong" ++ Because you say so?

"If we had evaluation algorithms that were guaranteed to be 100% accurate, it would be impossible for the computer using them to lose." ++ There is no such evaluation function.
It is the 7-men endgame table base that is 100% accurate.

"You don't give proper arguments."
++ I do, but people do not read them or do not understand them.

"Thin nodes vs thick nodes isn't an argument. It has to be interpreted and then it has to be proven right." ++ That is done in the link I provided.

"Clearly I am right" ++ Because you say so?

"There is no way to assess positions accurately"
++ The 100% accurate assessment comes from the 7-men endgame table base when it is hit.  

"Calculating forward means treating it as a game."
++ A position should be considered once only, not a million times.

"it requires different algorithms from any existing at present"
++ No, it does not. Stockfish is enough. All you need is calculate until the table base.

"I don't know of anyone who thinks the present algorithms in SF are perfect"
++ It does not need to be perfect, it only needs to calculate until the endgame tablebase.

"If they were perfect, it couldn't possibly lose against any opponent." ++ I even calculated that with 4 candidate moves at 17 s on a 10^9 cloud engine it makes 1 error in 10^20 positions.

"I'm good at finding inconsistencies in the arguments of others" ++ E.g. you asked to prove that all chess games end in a finite number of moves. I presented proof, but you did not understand. Maybe try to understand arguments first.