Chess will never be solved, here's why

Who will prove they understand numbers the best? I will have to keep reading to find out!

Forget about the Observer's Paradox! This is a contest among men to see who has the biggest, most powerful brain. Silly pawns. Your worth is fluid at best.

Overgeneralization.

This is up there with Fermat's Last Theorem, and I am waiting for an Andrew Wiles to appear with proof. Not sure I can wait 350 years though

Incorrect. Sarcasm is the correct definition.

Ironic sarcasm, given that you are a 4-day old troll account afraid to just stand on your reputation, yet talk about contests of "men" (which is sexist, but never mind that).  A category you have excluded yourself from.

#3951

"You do understand that all the point valuations you are using are approximations"
++ I am not talking about point evaluations.
There are only 3 objective evaluations: draw, win, loss.
A pawn is enough to win a game of chess by queening it.
Anything less than a pawn is not enough to win a game of chess as you cannot queen it. Anything more than a pawn is enough to win a game of chess, by trading it for a pawn and then queening that pawn. 

"all other values are fluid" ++ Does not matter, as long as all the other exceed the value of a pawn they can be traded for a pawn that can queen.

"The value of a tempo"
++ The value of a tempo in the initial position is 1/3 of a pawn, not enough to queen, not enough to win. The value of 2 pawns in the initial position is 2/3 of a pawn, still not enough to queen, not enough to win. The value of 3 tempi in the initial position is worth a pawn: the 3 tempo suffice to force the win of a pawn and then queen it.

"the value of every other piece" ++ Does not matter as long as it is > 1 pawn.

"the value of the pawn itself" ++ Does not matter as long as it can queen.

"What is the value of the pawn at a2 in this position?"
++ Does not matter. Can it queen? That is all that counts.

"how long did you want each "relevant" position to be analyzed for again...?"
++ 17 seconds on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, that is 17000 seconds on a desktop.

{Comment deleted, spam: DS}

#3964
"I was speaking of chess GAMES, not chess positions"
++ The number of chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082
https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html 

There are even many trillions of games that lead to 1 e4 e5, e.g.
1. e3 Nf6 2. Bc4 e6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bb4 5. Ne2 Qe7 6. Nfd4 Nb8 7. Nb5 Qd8 8. Nbc3 Ng8 9. Ng1 Bf8 10. Nb1 Be7 11. Bf1 Bf8 12. e4 e5

You are planning to have the entire processor array/server farm of your cloud engine evaluate each position one at a time?

What are you planning on using?  Google Compute Engine?  Heroku?  Engine Yard?

You do know that none of these platforms will allow you to run assembly language for a *real* attempt, right?  Nor will they allow you to install an engine directly on each server.  So, your premise is that you will install Stockfish on a virtual machine or something and treat the entire slice of the cloud you are renting out as if it was one giant PC?  

I'm just trying to get a full picture of how you actually think this is going to work...

Reported.  Go sell your wares on an appropriate platform.

What are you trying to say?

That is _NOT_ a general rule. It is highly position dependent. Even the positions with no other material fall into two classes (and the non-winning one is not small). Likewise rook endings, and others. And in general positions, pawn sacrifices are common, even as early as move 2, they can be sound (1. e4 e5 2. f4), or at least plausibly so (the value of this position is uncertain like that of the starting position).

So all your rule needs to become useful is a way to figure out which of the 10^40 or so positions it is true for and which it is false for.

Shoo, run along now.  As if you understood diddly about PaaS platforms...

There we are.

For experiment, one side (let's say is a perfect player who wants the game ends in a draw for this purpose) could build all his/their/her strategy around the fact that two Knights alone can't win.

That alone proves is a draw.

Now imagine all possible draw fortresses there exist evaluated from +3 to +7 that ends in a draw, take R+P vs Q endgame just for an example to not mention other.

The resources for a draw for a perfect player are abundant.

Now imagine how broad just is a road that leads to a draw for a perfect player.

Let that sink in.

The method of elimination eliminates it all.

I rest my case here

The leeway afforded by the fact that such an amount of greater material can still be a forced draw is definitely the best argument for chess being a forced draw, but it is not conclusive.  To be conclusive, you would have to prove that black (or white) can force trades and exchanges to achieve a forced draw while down a piece, or two knights.  This requires removing all pawns from play while not allowing too great a material advantage.

You could posit a forcing strategy where black plays not really to maintain equilibrium, but to immediately and solely to remove all of white's pawns and exchange pieces down to a draw, but it is highly doubtful this strategy could be achieved without losing too much material in the process.  Thus, black plays to maintain parity, and if an opportunity arises to trade quickly down into a drawn ending, black can then take it...but not force it to happen.

#3990

"That is _NOT_ a general rule." ++ Pawn up = win is a general rule, but there are exceptions.

"It is highly position dependent."
++ Everything depends on position, even queen up is no win facing imminent checkmate.

"Likewise rook endings, and others." ++ Yes some rook endings with 1 or even 2 pawns down are sometimes drawn, and some opposite colored bishop endings even 3 or more pawns down and fortresses. That only adds evidence to chess being a draw. Even if white could miraculously convert his 1 tempo to 1 pawn, he must do it in a way that steers clear of the safe havens.

"pawn sacrifices are common" ++ Not common, but they do happen.
The Catalan, the Two Knights Defence, the Marshall, the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn.
However, the sacrifice must provide sufficient compensation.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 provides no compensation at all and can be dismissed.

"they can be sound (1. e4 e5 2. f4)" ++ 'It loses by force' - Fischer, 'I could not find a way for white to equalise' - Kramnik '23.4% black wins, 6.3% white wins' - AlphaZero Figure 4. (d)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf

"So all your rule needs to become useful is a way to figure out which of the 10^40 or so positions it is true for and which it is false for." ++ No, I do not start with a set of 10^44 legal positions and then start to apply any rules on these.
Just like Losing Chess and Checkers have been weakly solved it is a calculation from the starting tabiya towards the 7-men endgame table base.
The good assistants launch the calculation and also stop it when they would agree on a draw or resign in a real correspondence game.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses a bishop for no compensation.
It is a sure loss for white, no doubt at all. So it can be dismissed.
1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1 is nonsense, does not try to win and thus can be dismissed,
though it probably still is a draw.
1 a4 does nothing for the center and does not develop any piece and weakens square b4,
so it cannot be better than 1 d4 or 1 e4 and can be dismissed.

Your self awareness is lacking, as always.  You look worse every time you engage with me without my having directed anything your way.  Take your own advice, and work on your own maturity.

#3997
"There was no need to continue your argument with tygxc. He is not going to alter his opinions."
++ Why? There has been no valid counterargument of any kind.

1) A single tempo is not enough to win and TCEC, ICCF, AlphaZero and human GM games confirm it: chess is a draw. Sveshnikov and others were right.

2) Weakly solving chess requires less positions 10^17 than strongly solving 10^44.
Losing Chess was weakly solved with 10^9 positions and Checkers with 10^14 positions.
Sveshnikov was right: existing computers can weakly solve chess in 5 years.