Forums

Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
tygxc
tygxc
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3121

#3794
"Then prove it."
++ See the last completed ICCF World Championship: 50 days per 10 moves, engines allowed
June 20, 2019 to June 1, 2022, 17 players round robin
https://iccf.com/event?id=79897

136 games, 121 draw, 15 decisive games.
If chess is a draw then that means:
119 drawn games with 0 error
15 decisive games with 1 error, usually the last move
2 drawn games with 2 errors
If chess were a white win or a black win, then there is no way to explain this.


DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3122
tygxc wrote:

#3795
"Produce one paper." ++ Maybe this one
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf 
Or
Black is OK! - GM Adorjan

Or "Soon all openings will be given exact scores, and if the variant is correct, it will lead to a technical endgame in which a draw will be achieved with accurate defense." - GM Sveshnikov, 65+ World Champion, MSc. Eng.

"Not a chess player" ++ A Draughts or Go player is not qualified.

"not a math hobbyist" ++ Lasker held a PhD. in mathematics.

"a Stockfish developer" ++ Unqualified: it is a chess question, not a programming issue

"Hans Berliner" ++ Tricky: Berliner believed 1 d4 wins for white and Rauzer believed 1 e4 wins for white. Those were the only two dissident voices.

Maybe try to produce a paper that is actually about solving chess or proving chess is a forced draw...

"Assessing Game Balance with AlphaZero:  Exploring Alternative Rule Sets in Chess"

...is not such a paper.  But for what it does say, you might also note that it does not agree with your position:

"It is widely hypothesized that classical chess is theoretically drawn"

So...your offered paper agrees with my position, not yours.

Finally, chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment on this topic.  Never have been, in the entire history of the game.  Any more than a race car driver can design their own racecar without another set of skills to apply.  Regardless, none of the people listed have made the ridiculous claims you are making here.  Not even Sveshnikov, whose statement was an off the cuff boast to entertain an audience and stopped well short of trying to dismiss 30+ orders of magnitude as you have done.

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3123
tygxc wrote:

#3812
"Called by many the best debater in the English language on Facebook"
++ They should have an elo rating for that.

If there were, you'd have to start Facebook users at 600-800 rating.

stancco
stancco
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3124
arjunjagan wrote:
TheChessIntellectReturns wrote:

Imagine a chess position of X paradigms. 

Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good. 

Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka? 

No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could. 

the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc. 

nothing in the world can change that. 

So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca. 

If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite. 

So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago. 

If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved. 

 

Nf3 and g3 would also be a valid solution

I would go further to say I believe all white's first moves are draw. With more or less difficulties.

tygxc
tygxc
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3125

#3831

"It is widely hypothesized that classical chess is theoretically drawn"
++ That is the cautionous way to say "Chess is a draw" like Fischer said.

"So...your offered paper agrees with my position, not yours."
++ The paper goes on to show 88.2% draws at 1 s/move and 97.9% draws at 1 min/move and that same trend even persists if stalemate is made a win. See Figure 2.

"chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment"
++ Chess players are more qualified than Draughts or Go players to judge Chess.
They have other qualifications: Sveshnikov a MSc. Eng, Lasker a PhD Math.

"a race car driver can design their own racecar without another set of skills to apply"
++ It is not about designing a car, it is about driving a car already designed and built.
Solving chess is not about developing software, it is about using an already developed software like Stockfish on already existing hardware like cloud engines.

"none of the people listed have made the ridiculous claims you are making here."
++ all of them made such claims and none are ridiculous except in your eyes

"Not even Sveshnikov, whose statement was an off the cuff boast to entertain an audience"
++ He said so to Eldar Mukhametov in an interview on 25 June 2007.

"and stopped well short of trying to dismiss 30+ orders of magnitude as you have done."
++ I do not dismiss 30+ orders of maginitude.
Per Gourion there are 10^37 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
Of a sampled set of 1000 none are sensible: can arise from a game with > 50% accuracy.
Tromp conjectured only 1 in 10^6 is sensible in that way.
I multiply by 10 to also accept positions with 3 or 4 queens.
That leaves 10^32 sensible positions.

Weakly solving a game requires less positions than strongly solving.
During solving each pawn move or capture renders huge numbers of positions unreachable.
Watkins has weakly solved Losing Chess to a win visiting only 10^9 positions.
Schaeffer has weakly solved Checkers to a draw visiting 10^14 of the 500,995,484,682,338,672,639 positions, i.e. 500,995,484,682,338,672,639^0.676
By analogy (10^32)^0.676 = 10^21

Weakly solving requires a strategy, i.e. 1 strategy.
If 1 e4 e5 is proven a draw, then it is not relevant if 1 e4 c5 draws as well or not.
That gives a further reduction to 10^17 relevant positions.

10^17 positions on a cloud engine of 10^9 positions / second gives 10^8 seconds
10^8 seconds = 10^8 s / 3600 s/h / 24 h/d / 365.25 d/a = 3 years.
The plan is not 1 but 3 engines: 1 for 1 e4, 1 for 1 d4 and 1 for other that do not transpose.
So 5 years should suffice indeed.

"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+).

He was right...

tygxc
tygxc
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3126

#3833
"I would go further to say I believe all white's first moves are draw. With more or less difficulties."
++ That is probably right, though 1 a4 or 1 g4 might lose.
For black it is more difficult: not all 20 possible replies to all 20 possible first white moves draw.

stancco
stancco
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3127
tygxc wrote:

#3833
"I would go further to say I believe all white's first moves are draw. With more or less difficulties."
++ That is probably right, though 1 a4 or 1 g4 might lose.
For black it is more difficult: not all 20 possible replies to all 20 possible first white moves draw.

I have the same opinion

Going4Draw
Going4Draw
Show your flair!
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3128

Hey man I'm just trying to enjoy the game.  This is like asking the meaning of life.  Just live with it.

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3129
tygxc wrote:

#3831

"It is widely hypothesized that classical chess is theoretically drawn"
++ That is the cautionous way to say "Chess is a draw" like Fischer said.

Nope.  It's a way of saying "I don't have the evidence or even the conviction needed to make a definitive statement".

"So...your offered paper agrees with my position, not yours."
++ The paper goes on to show 88.2% draws at 1 s/move and 97.9% draws at 1 min/move and that same trend even persists if stalemate is made a win. See Figure 2.

Lol.  That figure is meaningless, as it is completely relative to the various engines' levels of play.  You cannot prove chess is a draw by citing imperfect engine play or analysis.

"chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment"
++ Chess players are more qualified than Draughts or Go players to judge Chess.

A ridiculous argument that does nothing to refute my point.

They have other qualifications: Sveshnikov a MSc. Eng, Lasker a PhD Math.

Neither has written any kind of attempted proof.  So these accolades remain just that.

"a race car driver can design their own racecar without another set of skills to apply"
++ It is not about designing a car, it is about driving a car already designed and built.
Solving chess is not about developing software, it is about using an already developed software like Stockfish on already existing hardware like cloud engines.

No.  It isn't.  Solving chess cannot be achieved using Stockfish.  Not now, not 5 years from now.  Not 500 years from now.

"none of the people listed have made the ridiculous claims you are making here."
++ all of them made such claims and none are ridiculous except in your eyes

Not one of them.  They would not even say that chess is a forced draw without hedging their statements, never mind how to get to that conclusion.

"Not even Sveshnikov, whose statement was an off the cuff boast to entertain an audience"
++ He said so to Eldar Mukhametov in an interview on 25 June 2007.

So you agree with me then, he was pandering to an audience.

"and stopped well short of trying to dismiss 30+ orders of magnitude as you have done."
++ I do not dismiss 30+ orders of maginitude.
Per Gourion there are 10^37 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
Of a sampled set of 1000 none are sensible: can arise from a game with > 50% accuracy.
Tromp conjectured only 1 in 10^6 is sensible in that way.
I multiply by 10 to also accept positions with 3 or 4 queens.
That leaves 10^32 sensible positions.

Your "50% accuracy" is a number that has no meaning in terms of solving chess or determining perfect play.  So all the premises you build using it are a waste of time.  That number is 50% accuracy only of current engine evaluations.  Those evaluations change in a matter of weeks and sometimes days, with each new release.  Your whole argument is like a house of cards.

Weakly solving a game requires less positions than strongly solving.
During solving each pawn move or capture renders huge numbers of positions unreachable.
Watkins has weakly solved Losing Chess to a win visiting only 10^9 positions.
Schaeffer has weakly solved Checkers to a draw visiting 10^14 of the 500,995,484,682,338,672,639 positions, i.e. 500,995,484,682,338,672,639^0.676
By analogy (10^32)^0.676 = 10^21

Weakly solving requires a strategy, i.e. 1 strategy.
If 1 e4 e5 is proven a draw, then it is not relevant if 1 e4 c5 draws as well or not.
That gives a further reduction to 10^17 relevant positions.

10^17 positions on a cloud engine of 10^9 positions / second gives 10^8 seconds
10^8 seconds = 10^8 s / 3600 s/h / 24 h/d / 365.25 d/a = 3 years.
The plan is not 1 but 3 engines: 1 for 1 e4, 1 for 1 d4 and 1 for other that do not transpose.
So 5 years should suffice indeed.

"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+).

He was right...

These arguments are no better now than the several dozen times you have already made them in this thread and other threads.  Your only saving grace is that nobody is going to put up the money, so you will continue to have an excuse for there being no solution for an indefinite time period.

stancco
stancco
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3130
Going4Draw wrote:

Hey man I'm just trying to enjoy the game.  This is like asking the meaning of life.  Just live with it.

The meaning of life is a known thing. It's bad to live with it without knowing it.

vga3
vga3
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3131
btickler написал:

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

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


stancco
stancco
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3132

Goos one 🤣🤣🤣

we are witnesses of a slack jaw dimness here

🤣🤣🤣

tygxc
tygxc
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3133

#3838

"That figure is meaningless, as it is completely relative to the various engines' levels of play."
++ More time = higher level = more draws

"chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment"
++ That is a ridiculous argument with no point at all. Should we ask a hockey player then?

"Neither has written any kind of attempted proof." ++ But they expressed their expert opinions.

"Solving chess cannot be achieved using Stockfish.  Not now, not 5 years from now.  Not 500 years from now." ++ That is your misguided opinion, without anything to back it up.

"Not one of them.  They would not even say that chess is a forced draw without hedging their statements, never mind how to get to that conclusion." ++ They did say that.

"So you agree with me then, he was pandering to an audience."
++ He was giving an interview to leave a legacy, as he was terminally ill with cancer.

"Your "50% accuracy" is a number that has no meaning in terms of solving chess."
++ You misunderstand. 50% accuracy is an arbitrary threshold to distinguish the few sensible positions from many non-sensible positions. If a position results from a game with 99% or 100% accuracy, then that does not mean the position results from perfect play. If a position results from a game with 49% accuracy, then that means the position does not result from perfect play.

"Those evaluations change in a matter of weeks and sometimes days, with each new release."
++ Yes, but that does not matter. 99% today may be 100% or 96% tomorrow, and 49% today may be 42% or 62% tomorrow, but never 100% or 99%.
Besides the > 50% criterium is only used to define sensible positions to estimate the time needed to weakly solve chess, not in the actual solving.

"These arguments are no better now" ++ Those are solid arguments based on facts and figures, unlike your own ridiculous 'million years' based on erroneous toilet paper scribbling.

"nobody is going to put up the money" ++ Maybe. Humans have walked on the Moon. Unmanned vehicles have driven on Mars. Humans can walk on Mars. The only limit is money.

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3134

In your sense, @Optimissed, people "know" many things that are false. "Knowing" is a subjective state of mind.

Apparently, you and @tygxc  now "know" that chess is a draw. In your case this is inconsistent with your earlier position, but there is no necessity for this type of knowing to be consistent.

Quote from a book on philosophy I happen to be reading:

<<How do you know that you know the stuff you think you know? Take away the option of answering, “I just do!” and what’s left is epistemology.>>

That doesn't mean that every belief that is based on something (rather than nothing) is certain. It is extremely common for people not to recognise that their basis for a belief means it is uncertain.

tygxc
tygxc
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3135

#3846
"you and I are agreed that there's no likelihood of a full solution for chess coming soon."
++ On no basis at all. I agree with Sveshnikov it can be done in 5 years.

"That means that if we wish to try to answer the question of whether chess is a draw, we have no deductive argument to fall back upon: nor any likelihood of there ever being one."
++ There are deductive arguments. White is 1 tempo up. 3 tempi equals 1 pawn. It needs 1 pawn to win. 1 tempo is not enough to win.

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3136
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:

 

Apparently, you and @tygxc  now "know" that chess is a draw. In your case this is inconsistent with your earlier position, but there is no necessity for this type of knowing to be consistent.

It may be inconsistent with my earlier position as you understood it but I've always maintained that I know that chess is a draw.

Quote from a book on philosophy I happen to be reading:

<<How do you know that you know the stuff you think you know? Take away the option of answering, “I just do!” and what’s left is epistemology.>>

Yes of course. Where does this knowledge come from and why do we classify it as knowledge? Earlier I pointed out that we can subjectively classify something as knowledge but that the common concept is that knowledge is something that's commonly shared. Obviously it may not be shared among a majority of people. It may be among a small minority or, obviously, in a minority of one when a person sees something physical, unseen by others: for instance, as a witness to a murder.

This business about chess isn't physical. It's cognitive and it's a possible interpretation of previous chess results. It seems a very reasonable interpretation. It has never been refuted. Those of us who believe it to be knowledge share the conviction that it will never be refuted. One or the other is correct and we think that our alternative is the one that is real. If so, then that would mean that btickler's opinion is the one that's deluded. Yet that does not excuse his use of the word "delusion", when referring to others. It's merely an effect of his weakness at debate. He ought not do it. It's a childish, Facebook kind of thing.

That doesn't mean that every belief that is based on something (rather than nothing) is certain. It is extremely common for people not to recognise that their basis for a belief means it is uncertain.

Yes, absolutely right. However, you and I are agreed that there's no likelihood of a full solution for chess coming soon. Personally I think it's impossible. That means that if we wish to try to answer the question of whether chess is a draw, we have no deductive argument to fall back upon: nor any likelihood of there ever being one. Therefore we have to go with evidence, such as we have. That means inductively, doesn't it?

 

The answer is really very simple: we have to accept there is uncertainty.

I would have thought you would agree on the semantics that where there is uncertainty, the correct word is "believe" rather than "know".

For example, a very rational person holds a lottery tick and says "I believe I will not win the superdraw tonight". She may be aware that there is a theoretical 1 in 500,000,000 chance of winning the roll-over prize. She does not say "I know I will not win the superdraw tonight" because she considers the distinction based on a very unlikely 2 in a billion chance important and it may have been why she bought a ticket.

Now, here is an example of a less rational person, apparently incapable of understanding this point:

tygxc wrote:

#3831

"It is widely hypothesized that classical chess is theoretically drawn"
++ That is the cautionous way to say "Chess is a draw" like Fischer said.

Firstly, no it isn't.  Being "widely hypothesised" is so different to being a certainty that it is surprising that anyone would make the claim that the two are the same.

Given this degree of sloppiness it is no surprise that I was unable to justify the claim that Fischer ever said "chess is a draw" (not that if he had it would carry any more weight than other things he said that were false).  Rather I find that Fischer thought that it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically, for which there are three references.  Note the appropriate uncertainty.

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3137
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
 

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. 



Hi, equally valid doesn't mean equally correct. "Valid" sort of means "on subject". An invalid guess means that the answer to "is chess a draw?" is "a piano".

You're confusing guessing with scientifically based hypothesis. We have every reason to believe that the scientifically based hypothesis that chess is a draw is correct. There's no reason to believe "chess is a win" to be correct, so you're comparing mushrooms with octopusses. Superficially similar but not alike in reality.

No. We are just as close to proving chess is a forced win for white as we are to proving chess is a draw. So far nobody has even come close to proving either one. Not even close.  Lots and lots of guesses, lots of assumptions, lots of hypothesizing and grandstanding. Lots of faith, lots of belief, lots of wishful thinking. But no proof.

So as long as the two choices are equal, and they are, then there is no harm in choosing either one. Whatever your personal preference is on the topic, it's perfectly valid.  Which is why for those who say it MUST be one way, and can't be the other, prove it. Obviously it can't be proven, so until it can, it's probably best to keep an open mind on all the possibilities. 

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3138
tygxc wrote:

#3846
"you and I are agreed that there's no likelihood of a full solution for chess coming soon."
++ On no basis at all. I agree with Sveshnikov it can be done in 5 years.

"That means that if we wish to try to answer the question of whether chess is a draw, we have no deductive argument to fall back upon: nor any likelihood of there ever being one."
++ There are deductive arguments. White is 1 tempo up. 3 tempi equals 1 pawn. It needs 1 pawn to win. 1 tempo is not enough to win.

You believe a full solution to chess can be found within 5 years? Well, you also seem to believe chess is a draw, so there's that. 

Of course both those things are possible. I just don't think either one is very likely. You might believe chess will be proven a draw within 5 years, I believe it will be proven a forced white win within 200 years. And there is always the possibility we are both half right. Maybe chess will be proven a forced white win in 5 years. Or proven a draw within 200 years. 

tygxc
tygxc
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3139

#3852

"We are just as close to proving chess is a forced win for white as we are to proving chess is a draw." ++ And as chess is a forced win for black too?
There is massive evidence for chess being a draw, none for a white or black win.

"Lots and lots of guesses, lots of assumptions, lots of hypothesizing and grandstanding. Lots of faith, lots of belief, lots of wishful thinking."
++ Lots of facts and figures. AlphaZero, TCEC, ICCF, human GM.

"So as long as the two choices are equal" ++ You mean the 3 choices?

"and they are"
++ They are not. It is not because there are 3 possibilities that they are equally likely.

"Whatever your personal preference is on the topic, it's perfectly valid."
++ No, that is not true.
Look at the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6. There are 3 possibilities: a draw, a white win, a black win. They are not equally likely. I know black wins this position, but I do not have a full game tree ending in checkmate for all possibilities. I know it is a forced checkmate, but I do not know in how many moves.

"Which is why for those who say it MUST be one way, and can't be the other, prove it."
++ I have listed the empirical (AlphaZero, TCEC, ICCF, human GM) and theoretical (1 tempo = 1/3 pawn < 1 pawn) evidence.
Even more: each move dilutes the initial tempo up, so if there were a white win, then it would be a short win, not a long one. However, a short win would have been found long ago.
Even more: the simpler game Checkers (32 squares, 24 men, 2 kinds of men) took 10^14 positions to weakly solve, more than 10^9 for Losing Chess (64 squares, 32 men, 6 kinds of men, just like chess) because Losing Chess is a white win with 1 e3 and Checkers is a draw. A draw is harder to prove than a win. If chess were a forced win, then it would have been weakly solved before Checkers.

"Obviously it can't be proven"
++ Chess is a finite game so obviously it can be proven.
Based on facts and figures I agree with Sveshnikov that chess can be weakly solved in 5 years.

lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Aug 7, 2022
0
#3140
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
 

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. 



Hi, equally valid doesn't mean equally correct. "Valid" sort of means "on subject". An invalid guess means that the answer to "is chess a draw?" is "a piano".

You're confusing guessing with scientifically based hypothesis. We have every reason to believe that the scientifically based hypothesis that chess is a draw is correct. There's no reason to believe "chess is a win" to be correct, so you're comparing mushrooms with octopusses. Superficially similar but not alike in reality.

No. We are just as close to proving chess is a forced win for white as we are to proving chess is a draw. So far nobody has even come close to proving either one. Not even close.  Lots and lots of guesses, lots of assumptions, lots of hypothesizing and grandstanding. Lots of faith, lots of belief, lots of wishful thinking. But no proof.

So as long as the two choices are equal, and they are, then there is no harm in choosing either one. Whatever your personal preference is on the topic, it's perfectly valid.  Which is why for those who say it MUST be one way, and can't be the other, prove it. Obviously it can't be proven, so until it can, it's probably best to keep an open mind on all the possibilities. 


You're definitely wrong there, because in no way is it as close to proving it's a win as a draw. There isn't even a hint that it's a win, so you're falling back on the pseudo-theory of agnosticism being the only possible result of a failure to deduce.

I could be definitely wrong. All you have to do is prove chess is a draw. From what I've seen nobody has even come close to that. I know lots of people have strong opinions and strong beliefs, but that's not proof. 

It would be like you can "prove" you can't win the lottery. As proof you buy a lottery ticket, using the best skills available. You don't win. You you do it again, but don't win. Pretty soon 99% of the time you don't win. Pretty soon virtually every time you play the lottery, you don't win. It may even be a fact that you don't win 99.99% of the time. So the assumption is that it's impossible to win the lottery. It's a fact. It can't be done. Because over 99.99% of lottery plays are not wins. 

But I don't consider that proof. I consider that a belief. 

If you can prove that 100% of all chess games, played with the "best moves" whatever that might be at the current moment, are draws, then that would be a start. But so far nobody has ever done that. 

So until then we are not any closer to proving either side. But it would be interesting to see if at the highest level if whites win percentage is going up, going down, or staying the same.