Chess will never be solved, here's why

It's far from ludicrous, being the current reality we all live in.  You don't know if Ba6 guarantees a black win...you cannot demonstrate it conclusively, nor can any chess player alive or dead, with or without engine assistance.  

P.S. You lumped myself and Mar with Tygxc when Elroch is the person you meant...did you even bother to review your post?

@4195
"Losing chess is a completely different game with forced captures"
++ Yes, Losing Chess is a simpler game, that is why Chess needs more than 10^9 positions.
However, it shows that the number of legal positions 10^44 is not related to the number of positions needed to weakly solve a game.

You're not even talking about the same incident, which is par for your course.  If you know that Ba6 is won for black, then you can beat Stockfish from that position, on command.  Go ahead and demonstrate, without using an engine.  You can do it on live chess.

I know that K+R vs. K is won, vs. any engine, and I will happily demonstrate it.  If you are claiming to know, 100%, then you are claiming the same level of confidence.  You would think after a decade of watching Ponz get pounded for his 99.9999% that you might have learned something about making hyperbolic assertions...but alas, no.

10^17 will never be the number for any solution of chess.  You will be cold in your grave still dreaming about that number.

@4200
I hope you are still alive when Chess is solved with around 10^17 positions.

Even if chess was solved and we knew a certain position is winning, more often than not we still wouldnt be able to beat stockfish from there. I'm not sure what this conversation is supposed to prove

I'll watch.  (With which colour are you going to win?)

I think you're missing the point. As far as I know, nobody is arguing that they believe 2. Ba6 is good for white. However, they are merely pointing out that there is no proof that 2. Ba6 is won for black. It probably is, but that doesn't mean it certainly is. Even if you're 100% sure of something, that doesn't make the probability of it being true 100%.

I wonder how does the algorithm filter the moves? Just because 2.Ba6 is a piece sacrifice? There are lots of piece sacrifices that are unclear or even win the game.

Yes, the position is either a win, a draw, or a loss. But until every line has been calculated, there is no way to prove that it is a win for black. I believe it's a win for black, I'm almost certain of it. But there are many positions where a player is down a bishop but the position is a win or a draw. It's possible, no matter how unlikely, that white has a line that gets to one of those win/draw positions by force, even after 2. Ba6. And it will remain possible until someone, or something goes through every possible variation of 2. Ba6.

That seems pretty obvious. There are sacrifices in chess that often lead to winning. So it's also possible there is a very deep sacrifice (that no computer has even come close to discovering) somewhere in the opening or middle game. Which leads to a forced win, from the opening position. For either black or white. 

D.B. Cooper jumped from 10,000 feet. He's sort of a local legend. So from 20,000 feet you'd have the advantage of about twice as long to decide your next move. 

I was just agreeing that it's obvious it's a win, loss, or draw. And also obvious that it's possible that what currently is believed to be a loss could in fact be a draw or win. Over time the ability to assess chess positions gets better, so opinions change. 

If you didn't like that example, the fact is that White cannot necessarily force mate in KRK even from White to play positions (which rules out stalemates and hanging rooks); in fact from the majority of White to play positions.

Here is another you might like to try. See if you can force mate from the final position (shown) against the computer.

But it can be given (whether hypothetically or when the technology is developed in the future), because there are a finite number of possible positions after 2. Ba6. I'm not sure where you stand in the original "Will chess ever be solved?" question, or even if you've been involved in that discussion at all, but the very question of whether or not it is possible to analyze every position (from the starting position or after Ba6) is the entire point of this thread.

Interesting, I appreciate you explaining your perspective, so thank you for that

I suppose it really boils down to how far technology develops. There was a time where the current level of engines was believed to be impossible. 

@4222
"whether hypothetically or when the technology is developed in the future"
++ Present technology can weakly solve chess in 5 years now

"there are a finite number of possible positions after 2. Ba6." ++I showed it is a forced checkmate in 82. There is a finite number of possible positions in the initial position as well.

"Will chess ever be solved?" ++ Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years, but if it will depends on money to hire the assistants and rent the computers.

"whether or not it is possible to analyze every position" ++ The point is that not every position needs analysis, some positions like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 can be dismissed immediately

@4208

"There are lots of piece sacrifices that are unclear or even win the game."
++ That is right, but 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is no such case.
In game theory unclear does not exist: it is either a draw, a win, or a loss.
Per Capablanca any material advantage no matter how small is enough to win the game,
when all other factors are equal.
In this case black is up a bishop, a considerable material advantage.
All other factors are equal.
So that position is a loss for white.
I even proved above it is a forced checkmate in 82.
So weakly solving chess does not need to burn engine time on 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6.

I'll say yes.