Chess will never be solved, here's why

You put a period after that first sentence when it should be a comma .

@Optimissed

I have read your essay carefully. I have already stated in a previous post that since logic is based on postulates, in fact deductions are a form of faith. Therefore I do not agree with your distinction between cultists, scientists and theorists; we are all cultists to start with. But this discussion about epistemology and philosophy of science may lead too much off topic. The core point is that without an exhaustive proof, no scientific theory can be guaranteed to hold true in any possible case. Galilean relativity, Newton's law of gravitation and classical mechanics are golden examples. They were thought to be always true, "unbeatable" so to speak, and they were consistent with centuries of experiments. There was no evidence that they might produce quite inaccurate predictions. We all know how it went: they fail miserably under some circumstances.

In game theory, "optimal" is not a casual attribute. For chess, it means that an optimal player would be unbeatable in a match with an even number of games: if the game value is a draw, the optimal player would at least draw every game; if it's a win for either colour, the optimal player would always force the win with that colour. Therefore, the optimal player cannot score less than 50% of the points. Without a mathematical, exhaustive proof, a player cannot be guaranteed to be optimal, exactly like a scientific theory, without an exhaustive proof, cannot be guaranteed to always hold true.

This is not what people expect, when they read something like "the game xyz has been solved". They think about a definitive solution, that nobody will be able to disprove, ever.

Did you know that your username means "tired out" in Italian?

If only the topic of this post were "tell us what you know about chess being a forced draw"...oh wait, it's about solving chess, which is defined as proving it past personal belief.

All this diatribe accomplishes is to say "we have an opinion and we have stated it".  Bravo.

From what I've heard not every game at the highest level is a draw. Sometimes one side wins. So if almost all chess games are draws that means chess is a draw, that also means since almost all lottery plays are not wins, winning the lottery is not possible. 

I understand that many chess games are draws. But I also understand that most lottery plays are not wins. For me, that doesn't prove anything. It's a pattern. But not proof.

If chess has been proven to be a draw, why are there wins? If it's been proven to be a draw, why do people disagree? There must be some reason not everyone agrees. 

I could just as easily say because white has a first move advantage, AND the percentage of white wins at the highest level goes up, that's proof chess is a forced win for white. But until white wins every single time it's only evidence, not proof. And until all games are draws it's evidence, not proof. 

Even if every one of a billion games between the top players were draws, this would not prove chess to be a draw. The reason is that it is at least conceivable that there is a very narrow winning strategy that requires dozens of unique moves in every line and the players are just too weak to find them all (like current top engines are too weak to accurately play complex tablebase positions without help).

Yes, I'm aware of that, I mean tired.

I'm just across Italian coast 👋

Split, Croatia

Io sono Stanco, to not be confused, I mean my name is Stanko.

Piacere.  Perhaps hold off on assumptions of dimwittedness.  I know it might be difficult with the example behavior displayed by some.

Not just conceivable, more and more likely as tablebase construction continues to find longer and longer forced mates.

If, at some point, tablebases run into a wall where there are no more forced mates or great length being found for a significant period (say from 9 piece tablebases all the way to 10 piece), *then* you could make an argument that chess is a forced draw.  It would not be proven, but it would be far more robust than the assertions of "knowledge" being made here by a couple of microbes standing on a dust mote whose field of vision is 10^40+ too short-sighted.

I consider you lucky exploring Yugoslavia in 70's!

Unfortunately I don't know mr. Stanković.

I was born in 81.

However, I do know many (G)Masters of chess from Croatia and Bosnia&Hercegovina personally (not to mention their names here).

Glad to hear you, a hail of mine to you. 👋

😦? They were thought to be universal and they are not.

Is this a straw man? What I and others are saying is that there might be yet unknown lines which could disprove the assumption that chess is a draw. While we could safely ignore that Newton's law of gravitation is very incorrect under some circumstances and happily live with that (GPS satellites would not work properly, but...), for a solution a single unexpected line can make all the difference.

What about the second part?

That is a point already made by @MARattigan. In fact, I said that people do expect a definitive solution, not that they can be 100% sure that a computer-assisted proof is correct. But the point is: is a statement like "chess is a draw because... [unproven motivations]" as acceptable and reliable as a statement like "a computer-assisted proof by exhaustion established that chess is a [draw, win]"?

Great experiences. I admire you, indeed. Wish I was there!

When it comes to Russians btw, they are well known for ignoring their enemies 😁

#3864

"From what I've heard not every game at the highest level is a draw."
++ That is right. It is human to err.
Even in ICCF correspondence they sometimes mix up the move order and blunder a piece.

"if almost all chess games are draws that means chess is a draw"
++ No, the higher the level, the more draws. For every win we can pinpoint the error, usually the last move. For the high level draws we cannot pinpoint any error.

"If chess has been proven to be a draw, why are there wins?"
++ Because ultra-weakly solved is not weakly solved. Chess is known to be a draw, but not yet known how. I know for sure 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a black win. Black is up a bishop. If you believe 1 tempo is convertible to a win, then you surely accept 1 bishop is convertible to a win even more. However I do not have a complete game tree up to checkmate. I believe with enough time I can win that as black against Carlsen or against an engine, but I might err at some move.

"There must be some reason not everyone agrees."
++ All stong players agree. Not everyone agrees on scientifically proven facts either.

"I could just as easily say because white has a first move advantage, AND the percentage of white wins at the highest level goes up, that's proof chess is a forced win for white."
++ The win % goes down with level. Chess is a draw, but the path to the draw is wider for white and narrower for black. So black has more ways to err than white.
White can afford to lose a tempo, then white just becomes black. Even black can afford to lose a tempo and white can afford to lose 2 tempi. Black cannot afford to lose 2 tempi: then he gets 1 pawn equivalent behind and that is enough to win.

"Until all games are draws it's evidence, not proof."
++ Yes, it is evidence and not a formal proof. Checkers has been solved to be draw. Checkers is still played and not all Checkers games end in draws. There is still human error especially at the lower level. The proof tree for Checkers has 10^7 positions. Nobody has these memorised.

#3867

"Do you ask a person riding a roller coaster to design roller coasters?"
++ Weakly solving chess is not designing, it is using existing software on existing hardware.
The best person in the world to ask about that was GM Sveshnikov. Others are Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen, Karjakin, Caruana, Nepo, Dokhoian, Kazimdzhanov, or any ICCF grandmaster.

"GMs have made statements about draws, and when pressed they always hedge their bets."
++ Nope, see #3854 and #3856.

"Any number you stick in front of "accuracy" here is garbage, because the calculations that derived them are flawed." ++ That is besides the point. The accuracy cannot determine if play is perfect, but it can tell play is not perfect. It is like a modulo 3 primality test: it can determine that a number is not a prime, but it cannot determine that said number is a prime.

"If you eliminate a single position from evaluation based on your fuzzy criteria, your solution fails on the spot."
++ You still do not get it. The accuracy is not used in weakly solving chess. It is only used in defining sensible positions so as to assess the number of sensible positions that intervene.

"my calculations on current supercomputer capabilities and what it would take using current technology to solve chess are dozens of orders of magnitude more accurate"
++ You still do not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.

#3883

"I'd much rather ask a Digital Intelligence expert." ++ No not at all. Top grandmasters, their seconds, and ICCF grandmasters know most about chess and chess analysis.

"a weak solution is an overall verdict on what has been called the game- theoretical value."
++ No. You still do not get it.
Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined.  In layman's terms: it means a formal proof that chess is a draw.

Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
In layman's terms: it means that a way to draw for black has been found against all reasonable white moves. That would need to visit 10^17 positions, can be done in 5 years.

"strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions." In layman's terms: a 32-piece table base. That is all 10^44 legal positions, beyond the capability of present engines.

"That can't be obtained without a full solution of all possible and relevant games, each explored to the point where it's obvious what the result will be." ++ A solution tree of 10^17 positions would lead to a proof tree of about a billion positions, i.e. about 10 million perfect games.

"It would probably be impossible to store all these results" ++ No, 10 million perfect games are not that much more than existing data bases holding millions of games.

"btickler's calculations will be the more accurate" ++ No, he has no clue. He still does not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.

I apparently understand the definitions better than you do.  Weakly solving means solving against all moves from the initial position, not just "reasonable" moves.  Trying to change the definition of weakly solved to fudge your numbers doesn't help your case, it just makes you look desperate enough to mislead people willfully...

Ultra-weak

Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any moves of the perfect play.

Weak

Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game.

Strong

Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position, even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides.

Your premise is a bastardized dilution of weakly solved.

#3886

"I apparently understand the definitions better than you do."
++ Your toilet paper calculation shows otherwise.

"Weakly solving means solving against all moves from the initial position"
++ Cutting out unreasonable moves based on knowledge is allowed per van den Herik.
I know 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white, so I do not need to calculate to checkmate.
I know 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4, so I do not need to calculate 1 a4 to a draw.

"Trying to change the definition"
++ I do not change the definition. I replicate the definition verbatim.
I just explain in layman's terms as some people complain they do not understand jargon.

"Weak Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either,
against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game."
++ It is not an algorithm, but a strategy.
Such a strategy can entail a proof tree, but also a set of rules, or a combination.
Allen has weakly solved Connect Four by brute force
and Allis has independently weakly solved it by a set of 7 rules. 

"Strong Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position,
even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides."
++ Not an algorithm, but a strategy for all legal positions.
Not only after one or more mistakes have been made, but also alternative drawing paths after one drawing strategy has been found. If 1 e4 e5 is proven a draw, then for weakly solving it does not matter if 1 e4 c5 draws as well or not, but for strongly solving that is needed too.
The essence is that weakly solving needs to visit far less positions than strongly solving.
Weakly solving Losing Chess required 900 million positions, not 10^44.