Chess will never be solved, here's why

A mathematical proof wouldn't convince me, since a mathematical proof isn't possible! We have to rely on what we have!!

There are "top players" who think it's a win. It just goes to show that excellent chess ability doesn't mean all round ability or high intelligence in general!

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.

#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.

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.

Probably; I've been giving you far too much credit. You simply are not capable of answering criticism without repeating all that rubbish. If you had any true ability you would switch the style and/or method that you use in that which passes for your arguments.

There's no point in any further conversation with you. It's a shame .... I think age catches up with us all, eventually. I'm 71, just turned. I take it that you're 117 or so?

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. 

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).

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

haiaku, are you arguing that chess is a win or that chess may conceivably be a win? Yes, it's impossible to have a proper conversation. It's like talking to Coolout. It just gets reset. I think that people have misread the recent games between strong engines. We're in a period where attacking play is programmed into engines more positively than defensive play. Hence the ridiculously overvalued positional assessments for the attecking side.

I strongly believe that chess is drawn with best play. But I also believe that it will be impossible to prove that it is not a draw, whichever is the case. Obviously the five year thing is wrong and it's probably more like five million. ty thinks present algorithms suffice but obviously they do not. With good algorithms it may conceivably be a 15 year thing but it will take 50 years to develop the algorithms, minimum, imo. So we can say we know it's a draw, because there's no prospect of any further knowledge for a very long time..

#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..