Chess will never be solved, here's why

Which conflicts?

Ok, so you are not a positivist (I said that because you said that to you mathematical induction does not prove things better than inductive reasoning), but how do you prove things? To me a statement is proven when it holds true in any possible case. That does not mean that in real life or during a game of chess I do not make decisions based on incomplete informations. I bet, because I am compelled to do so or because the benefit-cost ratio is advantageous. But if we bet that the game-theoretic value of chess is a draw, how on earth could we say, without an exhaustive proof, that it is a draw with 100% of certainity?

The way tygxc plays with words is simply scandalous. The fact that the entries do not include the word "theory" does not mean that they are not considered theories anymore. AFAIK, on any text book from high school up, they are still defined as theories. I used Wikipedia because it is accessible to everyone. On such important and general matters, if someone made the mistake to consider the subject a theory when it is not, it would be corrected quite soon.

The reason why they are theories is because the principles they are based upon cannot be exhaustively proven. For example, the special relativity postulates that the laws of physics are the same in any inertial system of reference. We cannot prove it true, because we do not know all the laws of physics (possibly we do not know any law of physics) and we cannot make tests in any possible inertial system of reference. The predictions of the theory are confirmed by experiments conceived to falsify it, so that is an indirect evidence, but not a definitive proof, that the postulate is correct.

The discussion about the philosophy of science is a bit off topic, though. Chess is a board game of perfect information: such games are declared solved when a mathematical (i.e. exhaustive) proof is found. Treating chess in a different way would be an unjustified privilege, imho, even if the game is still too complex to complete the task in a reasonable time. Does someone want to find a non-mathematical "solution"? Ok but do not call that "solution", because this term is already used in game theory; it is misleading to use it for something qualitatively very different.

#3790
Wikipedia gives a reference, but misquotes it.
This is what the source, a true Physicist wrote:
“Quantum mechanics” is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. 
No 'theory' here.

Einstein originally called his brainchild Relativity Theory. That was correct: there was not yet experimental confirmation. After measurements (even during the First World War, to measure during a solar eclipse) had confirmed it, it was called Relativity, though the historical Relativity Theory was still used by laymen and by people who do not understand.

"Chess is a board game of perfect information. ++ That is right, but thermodynamics is also statistical. All laws of thermodynamics, or Statistical Physics as it is called in jargon, are derived from probability calculations. Even quantum mechanics is probabilistic: the wave function in the Schrödinger Equation relates to probability.

"this term is already used in game theory" ++ Fully correct.
'Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition.'
That 'strategy' can be a proof tree, but can also be a set of knowledge rules.
Allen solved Connect Four by brute force and Allis independently by a set of 7 rules.
It is my conviction that chess should be solved by a combination of brute force (the cloud engines) and knowledge (the good assistants, i.e. (grand)masters).

Any guess about the ultimate outcome of chess is hypothesizing. The guess "chess is a forced win for white" is just as valid as the guess "chess is a draw". Both are equal because both have good reasons to exist. 

I think chess is way too difficult for any human to solve, or even come close to solving. So computers will have to do most of the work. And even then it might not be enough. Maybe chess is unsolvable. But for all practical purposes (where people play chess) it's solved already. And since good computers have only been around for about 30 years it seems to me it's far, far too early to be making any announcements about future chess solving. Maybe in 100 years we'll have  better hypothesizing. 

I also think the reason tygxc thinks chess can be solved in 5 years is the same reason he thinks it's a draw. Wishful thinking. Personal belief. Faith. Maybe he's right, but my guess is that in 5 years we will see more of the same pattern of the last 30 years. 

#3792

"The guess "chess is a forced win for white" is just as valid as the guess "chess is a draw"."
++ And just as valid as 'chess is a forced win for black'? It is not because there are 3 mutually exclusive possibilities that they are equally valid. There is massive evidence for a draw and no evidence for a forced win either for black or white. 

"I think chess is way too difficult for any human to solve, or even come close to solving."
++ Only the number of legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions 10^17 defines the difficulty.

"So computers will have to do most of the work."
++ No, computers do a part and human grandmasters do another part. Humans must initiate and terminate the calculations. That is also how Losing Chess and Checkers have been solved.

"Maybe chess is unsolvable."
++ Chess is finite  thus solvable. How much time and effort is needed is up to discussion.

"I also think the reason tygxc thinks chess can be solved in 5 years is the same reason he thinks it's a draw." ++ Wrong. I got the 5 years from GM Sveshnikov and I was surprised.  So I checked facts and figures and found he was right.
Same for chess is a draw. I got that from Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Adorjan, Kasparov, Kramnik. So I checked the facts and found they were right. 

Then prove it.

Produce one paper.  Not a chess player, not a math hobbyist, but at the very least a Stockfish developer or the like.  Hans Berliner would do.

If you can produce *one*, then we can tackle "many".

Interesting article that may have bearing on this topic somewhere down the line...

https://news.yahoo.com/googles-quantum-supremacy-usurped-researchers-183622602.html

Apparently Google's quantum supremacy claim is not so supreme.  Not that it ever amounted to much, since quantum supremacy was defined as quantum computers being able to do a single task faster than traditional computers, which is more like "quantum entry-level achievement".

I said I was not going to argue with you for today, but you really amuse me. What reference and what source? That page gives a lot of sources, like (green enphases mine):

Explanatory note 2: Physicist John C. Baez cautions, "there's no way to understand the interpretation of quantum mechanics without also being able to solve quantum mechanics problems – to understand the theory, you need to be able to use it (and vice versa)"

Reference 20: Landau, L.D.; Lifschitz, E.M. (1977). Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory. Vol. 3 (3rd ed.). Pergamon Press. 

etc.

Sometimes a physicist mentions that QM, SR and GR are theories, other times s/he does not. As usual, you deliberately make use of "cherry picking".

I get that sometimes you think yourself clever in these retorts, but no.  Tygxc made a ridiculous claim, one that is easily refuted by asking for evidence.  You, on the other hand, are just desperate to achieve the appearance of having bested me.  It's not going to happen.

Nf3 and g3 would also be a valid solution

You can't debate your way out of paper bag.  Never have been able to in all my time here.  That's why you have to rely on talking up your own intellect and claiming you are winning arguments, instead of actually ever doing it.  

Moving on...

Yet another "and another thing" post from you.  It's becoming a trend.  Did you really just add another reply to the already replied-to post just to parrot Tygxc's previous comment and then make an oh-so-close to racist comment about another poster?  

When you get these "and another thing" impulses, I would sit on them and look for a better move.

It's interesting how narcissists say things like that and expect people to believe them.

Ok gorba

Lol, I see...so if I respond while you are offline, that is me avoiding facing you?  It couldn't possibly just be that we are on different continents 8-9 hours apart? 

Your distorted narrative is pretty much all you seem to have in life.  You cling to it like a man dangling from a cliff.

If you cannot understand why a forced win might be longer than other wins, then you really have no business commenting on this thread.  It's abundantly clear that if white can force a win, it will be arduous and hard-fought, or it would have already been discovered long ago.  Surely this basic logic cannot escape even you.

Lol, more narrative.  Calling yourself the best debater in the English language on Facebook is like calling yourself the world's top hand model at a gardener's convention.

I knew someone like you once, he was a born-again Christian, and he claimed that he used to be "one of the top 10 D&D dungeon masters in the world" (a category there is no measure or standard for whatsoever), but then one day his bible fell off the table and landed open to "though shalt not suffer a witch to live".  So, he gave it up and became the Lord's instrument...he was convinced he was chosen by God in preparation for The Rapture, which he thought imminent (this was 1989).

This type of grandiose imagination about oneself is very reminiscent of your outlook...the 1 in a million IQ claims, the certainty that you are winning arguments you have given no support/backing for, the constant "I'm the smartest one here, that's why" protestations, the dismissal of whole branches of science, the belief that you have supernatural abilities...

It's surreal and indicative of a level of denial that is beyond unhealthy.