Forums

Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
Avatar of playerafar
playerafar
Jul 9, 2022
0
#3541
ChessFlair01 wrote:

also the person who made this forum is closed

and notice his comment has -18 votes

sad XD

He's voluntarily closed though.  Could return.

Avatar of acgusta2
acgusta2
Jul 9, 2022
0
#3542
tygxc wrote:

#3596
"there are more ways for the game to end with you checkmating your opponent and fewer ways for your opponent to checkmate you if you control the center"
++ Yes and also the opponent will be forced to make unfavorable trades

"there needs to be a formal proof, both that control of the center always leads to a better or equal outcome" ++ This is well established and all grandmasters and theoreticians of centuries said so. How formal do you want it? The AlphaZero paper only confirms it, and it was fed with nothing but the Laws of Chess, no other human input.

Alpha Zero was fed the laws of chess, and then it was allowed to play against itself, meaning that its conclusions about positions and best moves come from its experience playing chess, and so is inductive reasoning from past games.

Avatar of chessisNOTez884
chessisNOTez884
Jul 9, 2022
0
#3543

JUST LOCK THIS FORUM.. chess.com moderators.. no 2 worst ever forum 

Avatar of tygxc
tygxc
Jul 9, 2022
0
#3544

#3599
Induction is not inferior to deduction.

Anyway do you really believe there is even a slight possibility that 1 e4 and 1 d4 draw and 1 a4 were a forced win for white?

If you do not believe the importance of the center, then what about material?
I am sure 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is a forced win for black. However, I do not have all possible lines analysed to checkmate and neither do I need to. Can you accept that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced win for black without all lines to checkmate?

Avatar of idilis
idilis
Jul 9, 2022
0
#3545
ChessFlair01 wrote:

also the person who made this forum is closed

and notice his comment has -18 votes

sad XD

Sadder is how jealous and desperate you are since this topics has 180 pages while yours only has 25 although the op here is gone and you're still trying so hard to revive your topic.

Avatar of idilis
idilis
Jul 9, 2022
0
#3546
ChessFlair01 wrote:
*Snip*

check my forum

btw i didn't copy i posted mine earlier that this one

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-100-analyzed-why/

Yes we know and you won't let us forget.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=173#comment-70448645

Avatar of playerafar
playerafar
Jul 9, 2022
0
#3547

 

Here's something about inductive versus deductive -
https://www.dictionary.com/e/inductive-vs-deductive/

but there may be an issue.
In mathematical induction - if something is proved to be always true for a particular constant - then for an algebraic unknown k - and then for algebraic k+1 - well I was taught that that's a mathematical principle of induction to prove a general case.
Because if it works for k or k+1 ...  where k is a general algebraic unknown ...  then why wouldn't it work for any value of k?
You might have to have some restrictions ...
perhaps that k is nonzero - and positive - and not complex ...
in other words positive nonzero real number ...
but you've still proved the general case.
The article didn't seem to say that.
Is that a paradox?  Not necessarily because it refers to general inductive reasoning.  Mathematical isn't specified.

Avatar of 25GSchatz22
25GSchatz22
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3548

checkers was loosely solved. why not chess ...

Avatar of DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3549
25GSchatz22 wrote:

checkers was loosely solved. why not chess ...

Because chess requires ~10^27 more positions to be calculated.

That's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more positions than checkers.  Get to work.

Avatar of tygxc
tygxc
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3550

#3606
"Because chess requires ~10^27 more positions to be calculated."
++ Get at least your facts straight.
Checkers has  500,995,484,682,338,672,639 legal positions.
Chess has 4.82 * 10^44 legal positions.
The ratio is 10^24 not 10^27.
Not all of these positions are to be calculated.
For checkers only 10^14 needed calculation for the proof.
For chess an estimated 10^17 are legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant.

Avatar of playerafar
playerafar
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3551

"For chess an estimated 10^17 are legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant."
No.  That's wrong.    The only part of the post I read.
That's simply a syllogism/mantra/pitch/slogan repeated over and over.
As silly as trying to insist that only four move options at a time could be relevant.

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3552
tygxc wrote:

#3599
Induction is not inferior to deduction.

Anyway do you really believe there is even a slight possibility that 1 e4 and 1 d4 draw and 1 a4 were a forced win for white?

If you do not believe the importance of the center, then what about material?
I am sure 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is a forced win for black. However, I do not have all possible lines analysed to checkmate and neither do I need to. Can you accept that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced win for black without all lines to checkmate?

It's different and obviously, more important, since without "inductive thinking" there would be nothing to deduce from.

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3553
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"

Yes it does. 

It means that you suspect there may be a forced win.

In reality, the slight excess of white wins over black ones can be adequately explained by other means and therefore there's no need to believe that white has a forced win.

I agree. And there is also no need to believe that chess is a forced draw. 

But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned. 

What do you mean you choose forced win for white? You mean thats your guess? Why do you wanna make a guess based on very unconvincing or nonexistent reasoning, isn't it just reasonable to say we don't know until chess is solved. This convo is confusing me.

Yes. It's reasonable to say you don't know. It's reasonable to say it's a forced draw. And it's reasonable to say it's a forced win for white. They are all perfectly reasonable. But since at a level we as humans will never achieve it's one or the other, I choose forced win for white. 

That's all true, so long as it's reasonable to assume it's a draw.

Avatar of playerafar
playerafar
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3554


Its reasonable to say you don't know.
And without assuming.
The nature of not knowing something.  Accepting not knowing.

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3555

I think that in reality we know it's a draw.

Avatar of playerafar
playerafar
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3556

 

I think in reality we know we don't know.

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3557
GM_DR_FLASH wrote:
tygxc wrote:

 

thats cause people play dead games nowadays not dynamic like botvinnik tal or fischer

 

Botwinnik certainly didn't have the rep for playing exciting chess. Just the opposite.

Avatar of lfPatriotGames
lfPatriotGames
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3558
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"

Yes it does. 

It means that you suspect there may be a forced win.

In reality, the slight excess of white wins over black ones can be adequately explained by other means and therefore there's no need to believe that white has a forced win.

I agree. And there is also no need to believe that chess is a forced draw. 

But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned. 

What do you mean you choose forced win for white? You mean thats your guess? Why do you wanna make a guess based on very unconvincing or nonexistent reasoning, isn't it just reasonable to say we don't know until chess is solved. This convo is confusing me.

Yes. It's reasonable to say you don't know. It's reasonable to say it's a forced draw. And it's reasonable to say it's a forced win for white. They are all perfectly reasonable. But since at a level we as humans will never achieve it's one or the other, I choose forced win for white. 

That's all true, so long as it's reasonable to assume it's a draw.

It's still all true, so long as it's reasonable to assume it's a win for white. 

It's also still true, so long as it's reasonable to assume we don't know. 

I agree with those who have said it doesn't matter. Humans will never reach the level of play where it will matter. So, lets assume chess is a forced win for white. All good openings lead to the same result, bad openings lead to the same result even sooner. And lets say it takes 10,450 moves (or less if its a really bad opening). I just don't see how it will matter. Humans playing against other humans will still win with black. Even at the highest level. 

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3559
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"

Yes it does. 

It means that you suspect there may be a forced win.

In reality, the slight excess of white wins over black ones can be adequately explained by other means and therefore there's no need to believe that white has a forced win.

I agree. And there is also no need to believe that chess is a forced draw. 

But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned. 

What do you mean you choose forced win for white? You mean thats your guess? Why do you wanna make a guess based on very unconvincing or nonexistent reasoning, isn't it just reasonable to say we don't know until chess is solved. This convo is confusing me.

Yes. It's reasonable to say you don't know. It's reasonable to say it's a forced draw. And it's reasonable to say it's a forced win for white. They are all perfectly reasonable. But since at a level we as humans will never achieve it's one or the other, I choose forced win for white. 

That's all true, so long as it's reasonable to assume it's a draw.

It's still all true, so long as it's reasonable to assume it's a win for white. 

It's also still true, so long as it's reasonable to assume we don't know. 

I agree with those who have said it doesn't matter. Humans will never reach the level of play where it will matter. So, lets assume chess is a forced win for white. All good openings lead to the same result, bad openings lead to the same result even sooner. And lets say it takes 10,450 moves (or less if its a really bad opening). I just don't see how it will matter. Humans playing against other humans will still win with black. Even at the highest level. 

OK, it doesn't matter.

Avatar of Elroch
Elroch
Jul 10, 2022
0
#3560
tygxc wrote:

The ratio is 10^24 

That's ok then.

If solving checkers costs a cent (underestimate, in case you haven't noticed), solving chess will cost $10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Start saving.