Weakly solving chess is tracing paths of drawn positions between the initial position and known 7-men table base drawn positions.
No, because it is not proven and there is neither unanimous acceptance that the initial position is a draw.
You have been requested many times to make yourself clear about what is proven or just believed true, and in the latter case, whether it is by general consensus or not. You are still very careless on that, to say the best.
#3145
"it is not proven and there is neither unanimous acceptance that the initial position is a draw"
++ All top players and analysts unanimously accept that. Also SVeshnikov said it in the famous interview. In the previous century Rauzer thought 1 e4 wins and Berliner thought 1 d4 wins.
It is not only what they say "chess is a draw", but also what they play. With black Carlsen, Karjakin, Caruana, Nepo in their WC matches sticked to the same defences, confident they can draw. With white they varied trying to find some hole in the black defence. If they believed white would win, then they would play the presumed winning move all the time and they would vary their defence as black against the presumed winning move.
If chess were a win, then there would be less draws at higher levels and at longer time controls. That is not the case. With more time there would be less draws and there are more draws in AlphaZero autoplay. If regular chess were a win, then stalemate = win would be even more decisive. AlphaZero showed that is not the case: high draw rate even if stalemate = win.
If chess were a win, then there would be more wins in ICCF WC, especially as their rules allow win claims in 7-men positions that exceed 50 moves without capture or pawn move. That is not the case and such allowed win claims do not happen. If chess were a win, then there would be more decisive games over the years. That is not the case: there are less decisive games over the years.
If chess were a win, then TCEC with its 50 imposed unbalanced openings would show more decisive games. It does not.
That is all evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
So "chess is a draw" is true, but not yet formally proven.
"it is not proven and there is neither unanimous acceptance that the initial position is a draw"
++ All top players and analysts unanimously accept that. Also SVeshnikov said it in the famous interview. In the previous century Rauzer thought 1 e4 wins and Berliner thought 1 d4 wins.
It is not only what they say "chess is a draw", but also what they play. [ . . . ] If they believed white would win, then they would play the presumed winning move all the time and they would vary their defence as black against the presumed winning move.
If chess were a win, then there would be less draws at higher levels and at longer time controls. [ . . . ]
Jumps to conclusions by faulty generalizations. Saying that "all top players and analysts unanimously accept that" is not correct, if acknowledged that some think otherwise (Berliner died in 2017, not in the previous century). And one thing is to believe that the game is a draw, one other is to not know how to win. Games between strong players may end in draws more often because they do not know how to defeat an opponent of comparable skill, but they are skilled enough to avoid quick losses due to gross blunders; then, as the position simplifies, imo it becomes more and more difficult to win, ceteris paribus (in fact, a player who tries to win usually avoids simplifications). Nevertheless, billions of drawn games cannot disprove that there is an unknown way to force a win, as the fact that White wins more games than Black, does not prove it. Actually, no one claimed the game ultra-weakly solved.
If chess were a win, then TCEC with its 50 imposed unbalanced openings would show more decisive games. It does not.
Compared to games with "balanced" openings? How can be determined whether they are "balanced", if the game is not solved? The effect of the opening on the final outcome is not proven either (it will be when chess will be solved).
That is all evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
So "chess is a draw" is true, but not yet formally proven.
Saying that it is "proven beyond reasonable doubt" but not formally, may be jargon for a court of law, not for scientists, and no scientist ever says something like "this is true, but not proven", if it's just believed true. Believing something true, does not make it true. I had just asked you to be less careless about these things.
Most of these objections have already been raised previously. I think that a serious discussion should be something like: statement -> objection -> counter-objection -> counter-counter-objection -> counter-counter-counter-objection, etc... You stop the process at some point and start again from the beginning. That's sterile.
Refuting spam from one person about nodes and Sveshnikov and five years and cutting long numbers in two arbitrarily -
is building the case that chess will not be 'solved' in this millenium and that money will not be wasted believing it will be.
However - money will be spent on tablebases and chess software and servers and chess hardware.
Chess is a popular game ! Many programmers are chessplayers !
So chess will likely be used in the future for computer research exercises in cyber-development !
Or rather - continue to be used for that !
Along with other popular exercises.
Like maybe - how many digits of pi can be quickly computed ...
Exercises concerning prime numbers and new kinds of Pin numbers and random number generators.
There's probably a big list - but chess is up there on that list ...
chess is mathss.. but maths is not chess.. maths can get solved.. chess cant.. simple logic
#3148
"Berliner died in 2017, not in the previous century"
++ but he said it in the previous century. I claim all top players and analysts are unanimous now. If you disagree with that, then please quote one who says otherwise.
"Games between strong players may end in draws more often because they do not know how to defeat an opponent of comparable skill"
++ No, games between strong players end in draws because none makes a mistake. Look at the last world championship: all 4 decisive games were by clear errors in drawn positions.
"it becomes more and more difficult to win" ++ You cannot win a drawn position.
The usual way to win a won position is to simplify to a won endgame.
"no one claimed the game ultra-weakly solved." ++ I consider it thus, without formal proof. The available evidence is convincing enough to make me think that way. There is no valid argument for the contrary and the contrary cannot explain the observed phenomena. The mythical forced win is a unicorn. Some believe in unicorns, but no traces of such animals have ever been found. You cannot prove they do not exist. Maybe they always hide. The believers must prove they exist.
"How can be determined whether they are balanced, if the game is not solved?"
++ The organisers of TCEC each year select 50 slightly unbalanced openings. Most end in double draws and thus are balanced after all. Some end in double losses and thus are busted. A few end in a loss and a draw and thus are slightly unbalanced: unbalanced enough to produce a win, not unbalanced enough to produce two losses. Each year the selection takes into account the results of last year so as to avoid the balanced as well as the busted openings.
"The effect of the opening on the final outcome is not proven"
++ It is. Some openings are busted. They are shunned in top play and ICCF. Some openings are analysed to a draw. They are shunned as well in top play and ICCF.
"no scientist ever says something like "this is true, but not proven""
That is what the Scientific American article said.
Anyway here is a question for you.
Do you consider it proven by mathematician Tromp that there are 10^44 legal chess positions?
He counted 8726713169886222032347729969256422370854716254 positions.
Then he sampled a million of these and he found 56011 of these to be legal.
So he arrived at 8726713169886222032347729969256422370854716254 * 56011 / 1000000 legal chess positions. Is that proof to you?
why everyone are talking like einstein bruh.. chess =maths.. maths = chess? No. this equation tells all.. maths can get solved? yes.. but chess cant..
#3154
It is the other way around.
Mathematics cannot be solved, but chess can.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527
#3154
It is the other way around.
Mathematics cannot be solved, but chess can.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527
genius!!!! i never knew that.. chess is GREATER THAN MATHEMATICS!!!!???!!.. alright i have changed up my mind.. chess can get solved
The comment in #3156 has no value.
(response to post by haiaku, apparently removed)
"Indeed, I did not find claims like: "the initial position is not a draw" by top players of this century, but I think it's equally difficult to find statements like: "the initial position is a draw" by all of them" ++ Some do not care to talk. Those that did talk are unanimous: a draw.
"You acknowledge that there was no unanimous consensus in the last century"
++ Even in the previous century the qualitative and quantitative majority thought / said chess is a draw. Rauzer and Berliner held a minority opinion and believed in white supremacy in chess. Things are different now, as the drawing rate at top level has gone up, as we now have engines, AlphaZero, ICCF and TCEC with a high and rising drawing rate. Even so, inspection of the few decisive games always enables to pinpoint a mistake by the losing side. In the last world championship match all 4 decisive games were drawn positions before that identifyable mistake. Likewise all ICCF WC decisive games have identifyable mistakes, usually because of human factors like illness.
"but the game-theoretic value is not considered scientifically determined, so the number of mistakes cannot be considered scientifically determined."
++ AlphaZero autoplay gives more draws with more time/move even if stalemate = win.
-> How do you explain that under the assumption that chess were a white win?
"they usually avoid simplifications, if they want to increase their chances of winnig."
++ No, top players do not avoid simplifications. Most games among top players are won in the endgame i.e. after simplifications. There are many reasons to simplify. If one side is a pawn up, then that side will place pieces in the center to invite trades to simplify to increase the relative importance of the pawn. The other side usually cannot evade that as it cannot allow the other side to occupy the center that works as high ground. The only exception are rooks, that are equally active from all squares. That is the reason why rook endings occur that often: the defending side can avoid trading rooks.
Top players also simplify to gain a positional advantage: trading an inactive piece for an active piece. Fischer had no inactive pieces: he traded them away.
"I provided arguments that explains the draw rate better than yours"
++ How so? For the last completed ICCF WC I explained the 127 draws, the 6 white wins and the 3 black wins: 126 perfect games with no errors, 1 draw with 2 errors, 9 decisive games with 1 error. I can even pinpoint the 1 error in the 9 decisive games.
-> Can you tell how many games with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4... errors there are under the assumption that chess were white win?
"Do you consider it proven by mathematician Tromp that there are 10^44 legal chess positions?
It's an estimation."
Please do not dodge the question.
-> Do you consider proven, yes, or no?
"the number of legal chess positions is approximately (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44"
Tromp first deduced and then induced.
He determined the legality of a sample of 10^6 positions and concluded 10^44 are legal.
If he can use induction, then so can I.
The article in 3154 has no value. Mathematics is potentially infinite, so the entirely cannot be discovered. Chess seems to be pseudo-finite. Theoretically it can be fully solved but it will probably never happen.
Maths nerd right???? See chess also can get solved and maths is never infinite.. and the statement you have used that chess is pseudo finite is just lame and untrue
It's still does not make sense to say by theory it can be solved but it will never happen.. congrats you already said that it "can" get solved.. by theory.. still what does that comment of yours supposed to mean? Mathematics also can get solved.. so as chess..
Maths=chess chess = maths that's the correct equation
These are plays on words and trying to assign binary A or B to things that are scalar and paradoxical and that have grey areas.
Words are to serve us. Not us to serve the words.
The article in 3154 has no value. Mathematics is potentially infinite, so the entirely cannot be discovered. Chess seems to be pseudo-finite. Theoretically it can be fully solved but it will probably never happen.
Maths nerd right???? See chess also can get solved and maths is never infinite.. and the statement you have used that chess is pseudo finite is just lame and untrue
boi out here posting something untrue about math, gets corrected, and responds with "lol math nerds amiright xdddddddddd"
Well i have changed my mind and chess can also get solved.. pls don't take it as a joke.. chess is like math math is also like chess. But that pseuto finite word is just useless lol 😂🤣😂😂
BTW i said that maths nerd as a joke.. wow how serious you would have become by this one joke lol 🤣😂
I remember commenting after 2000 posts here -
as to the next 1000 posts ... 
what they might look like.
And would it just be essentially a reiteration of the previous 2000 ...
And so far - no answer to my point that a King in check by three pieces being illegal should mean that no 'retrograde analysis' is needed to then instantly determine that a King in check by four pieces is therefore also illegal. And by five pieces and six and so on.
Logic. Not computer crunching.
Dead silence to that.
Because it can't be argued with?
Argument. Disagreement. Conflict. Contest.
Dead forum if that isn't there ?
The spammed claims about five years to solve gets lots of attention.
Lots of continued refutations.
Why - because people want to do that.
Its like refuting flat earth claims.
"Hey - we can refute this."
But the 'chess solved in five years' claimer - like 'flat earth' claimers
never gives in !! The Show Must Go On ...
So by post 4000 in a few weeks - another 1000-post reiteration perhaps.
Not a complaint - just an observation. 
#3140
"I'm starting to accept that there's so much intellectual difference between us"
++ Yes, I think so too, but it is not in the sense you think.