Chess will never be solved, here's why

I didn't say anything about exploding. Hanging up and requiring to be rebooted would be quite sufficient to satisfy my need for silly entertainment.

#3744
"I believe mate in 500 (or more) is indeed possible, but only if one side made mistake earlier"
++ Yes, that is right. Here is an example: win in 400 moves.

We can prove black made a mistake earlier.
Black has 2 dark square bishops, so one must be an underpromoted pawn. The only reason to underpromote to a bishop instead of a queen is to avoid stalemate, i.e. to avoid a draw. As the position is lost for black, black made a mistake to underpromote to a bishop. He should have promoted to a queen and then the win in 400 is not there.

If both sides play "correctly" it will be a draw on chess.com with an initial score of +0.64, but if, for example, by the end of the game the score remains +0.64, then this does not mean at all that White has won, it only means that it is more pleasant for him. If you play like people, and not like computers, then most likely White will win, since White is more pleasant to play purely psychologically. But even that is absolutely not accurate. As for the main question, it must be admitted that computers used to play weaker than people, or at least on an equal footing, but now computers can do almost everything, but they will hardly "solve" chess. There are too many positions! Identical games can be 5% and then mostly these are the games that are studied (I mean the children's mat and other traps at the beginning of the game) So chess will be solved when people play ALL possible positions and this will be possible only after 1000 years and more, and computers will not stand still and will help BECAUSE EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD IS DEVELOPING!!! Therefore, already in 1000 years chess will probably not exist because of the boringness of playing identical games. But perhaps in such a GREAT time they will improve and live

they change a lot

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

DO NOT USE GIANT FONTS.  YOUR OPINION SHOULD MAKE ITS OWN STATEMENT.

Yes, but people keep bringing it up. So it's constantly part of the conversation. I think the 50 move rule is just to speed up games where people don't have the ability to see far enough ahead. But computers do. If seem like every discussion about solving chess involves someone eventually saying "but the 50 move rule makes chess a draw".

I agree, it probably does. But I didn't bring that up, don't disagree, and is one of those answers to a question that was never asked. 

@IfPatriotGames , Och aye. You could be right but I believe it would not be like so. I'm pretty sure 50 moves rule has no effect on the final solution(s).

The solution is a draw either way, with or without that particular rule.

That rule could only help you to win a certain position where is more than 50 moves (rule) to win is needed, BUT in that game the mistake was already made and that particular position, therefore, is not a RELEVANT solution.

How can you be sure the 50 move rule has no effect on a final solution? You'd have to know what the final solution is first. That's like saying you can be pretty sure chess is a forced win for black. At best, it's a hunch. But maybe pretty sure is a hunch, I don't know. 

The reason it matters is because there are countless positions yet to be discovered that are forced mates in 200, 300, 500, maybe even 900 or more. And many of those will have forced mate solutions where the 50 move rule would prevent the necessary progress to get the mate. And we just can't say for sure yet ALL of those undiscovered positions can't be forced from the opening position. 

Sometimes a game ends in a draw only to find out later (through computers) there was a forced mate solution to that draw. 

Unless the opening position isn't an error. We can guess it's a draw, and I guess it's probably a draw with some of the current rules, like the 50 move rule. I could be wrong, but that's my guess. 

I just feel that there is so much  unknown, particularly with very long complex endgames with a lot of pieces where there ends up being a forced mate. I haven't seen any good reason why at least some of those complex endgames can't be forced from the opening position. Or even more likely, a much longer and much more complex forced mate endgame that's yet to be discovered. I think everyone agrees we are going to see longer and more complex forced mate endgames as computers get more advanced. 

Good article

#3756

"How can you be sure the 50 move rule has no effect on a final solution?"
++ Because grandmaster and ICCF and TCEC games usually end before move 40. Because the 50-moves rule is almost never invoked before a 7-men position is reached. Because there is always a complelling reason to move a pawn or capture.

"You'd have to know what the final solution is first." ++ No.

"we just can't say for sure yet ALL of those undiscovered positions can't be forced from the opening position." ++ GM and ICCF and TCEC games rarely last over 40 moves. The 50-moves rule is almost never invoked before 7 men are reached.

"Sometimes a game ends in a draw only to find out later (through computers) there was a forced mate solution to that draw." ++ More often it is the other way around: a game is won and the computer points out a draw.

I don't doubt that more often "it is the other way around". But it would have to be the other way around EVERY time to eliminate the possibility of a forced mate. 

I still think we are many decades, probably at least 150 years from any sort of solution. Since computers are still in their infancy it's far too early to speculate what they can or cannot do in the future. But the trend seems to be that they are getting better at solving chess problems. 

So today a forced mate in 500 is rare, but in the future we may see countless forced mates in 2000 moves. And it only takes one of those positons to be forced from the opening  to make things interesting. 

He tried to make you appear wrong even if he did not make any real objection to what you said. He used that technique over and over in this thread.

#3762

"I still think we are many decades, probably at least 150 years from any sort of solution."
++ GM Sveshnikov said chess can be weakly solved in 5 years, but the impeding factor is money to rent the cloud engines and pay the (grand)master assistants.

"So today a forced mate in 500 is rare"
++ 500 is a fantasy. Games usually end before move 50.
In the last Candidates' tournament the average game lasted 47 moves.
In the ICCF world championship the average game lasts 39 moves ending in draw either by agreement, 3-fold repetition, or a 7-men endgame table base draw claim.

This is the longest world championship game ever. It should have been a table base draw.
The 50-moves rule was never close to being invoked.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2127373  

This is a famous example where black missed a forced checkmate.
The 50-moves rule was never close to being invoked.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937789 

Hi

I think we may be talking about two different things. You are talking about grandmaster games, and tournaments. I'm talking about solving chess. 

I don't understand what things like "games usually end before move 50" have anything to do with solving chess. If there was a solution to chess in less than 50 moves, I think someone would have found it by now. 

#3766

"I'm talking about solving chess." ++ Me too. The closest we have to that are ICCF World Championship games, TCEC engine games, and human grandmaster games. If most of these were draws by the 50-moves rule, then it would be plausible that there might be wins without the 50-moves rule, but that is not the case: the 50 moves rule is rarely invoked before 7 men are reached. When two intelligent entities human, engine, or centaur play, then their games usually end before move 50. The rules of the game are such that good play automatically demands pawn moves or captures.

"If there was a solution to chess in less than 50 moves, I think someone would have found it by now." ++ Chess is a draw. It is harder to prove a draw than to prove a win. Losing Chess (64 squares, 32 men, 6 kinds of men, just like chess) is a forced win and needed only 10^9 positions. Checkers is a simpler game (32 squares, 24 men, 2 kinds of men) but needed 10^14 positions. We already have part of the solution: 99% of the ICCF World Championship drawn games are perfect games with no error from either side. However 1000 perfect games are not a full solution.

TCEC games average out to more like 60 moves as I recall when last I checked, and many go over a hundred moves.

You cannot determine a perfect game without solving chess, and saying that engines play perfect games because the same or other engines cannot discern any errors in those games is a form of circular logic you ought to understand, but apparently do not.

#3768
last ICCF World Championship:
Longest 102
Shortest 16
Average 39
Standard deviation 14
In TCEC games drag on longer, as there is no human entity to cut short obvious draws.

That was a fairly long winded way of saying "you are right, btickler", don't you think?