Chess will never be solved, here's why

Demonstrably not the case, but thanks for another amusing juxtaposition.  

My goal has always been to get so good at chess that I break the game. I'm starting to think I won't be able to do that...

#3680
"I don't know where you get the 3 million figure" ++ It is not for the 32-men table base, it is for weakly solving chess 10^17 positions : 3 cloud engines and 3 grandmasters during 5 years.

#3684
"The 10^44 number is supported by a large number of people, 10^17 is supported by one. "
++ 10^44 is the correct number of legal positions, i.e. the number of positions in a 32-men table base to strongly solve chess.
To weakly solve chess only the subset of sensible, reachable, and relevant positions is needed: 10^17. Losing Chess has been weakly solved visiting only 10^9 positions, not 10^44.

1. You are incorrect, your proposed solution does not even meet the criteria for an ultra weak solution.

2. Losing Chess is a garbage game, and forced captures are a dream for easy solving.  They do not remotely compare, and you know it.

#3698
"forced captures are a dream for easy solving"
++ That is right, that is reason 1 why weakly solving chess requires more than 10^9 positions.
That Losing Chess has been weakly solved using 10^9 positions proves that chess can be weakly solved with less than 10^44 positions too.
Checkers (32 squares, 24 men, 2 kinds of men) is simpler a game than Losing Chess (64 squares, 32 men, 6 kinds of men) but needed 10^14 positions. That is because Checkers is a draw like Chess and not a white win like Losing Chess. That is reason 2 why weakly solving Chess needs more than 10^9 positions.

I should never have resurrected this thread. It was very happy being dormant and sleeping.

2.
Losing chess is a different game from chess. It's enjoyable, in its way. I would think it's roughly as related to chess as draughts or checkers is, so it isn't altogether irrelevant.

1. <<<<<You are incorrect, your proposed solution does not even meet the criteria for an ultra weak solution.>>>>>

There's probably no such thing as an ultra-weak solution, if it's basically the assessment as to whether chess is a draw. That's because the surrounding solution is absolutely necessary to achieve it. As jargon, "ultra weak" is just another bit of complete nonsense, invented by people who didn't know any better. "Weak" is no better really, since all it does is to discard the "non-sensible" parts of the full "solution".

We can automatically assume that the criterion of "reachability" is irrelevant, since if it isn't reachable, it isn't part of the game of chess, notwithstanding that such irelevant positions may be portrayed with chess board and pieces.

Moreover, sensible and relevant may be considered as synonyms for this purpose. It doesn't matter which we use but I prefer "relevant". A relevant position is one that is reachable. It's also one that's sensible. That is, it isn't reached by a series of moves that includes one or more obvious errors, such that the outcome may be decided trivially.

So we're left with relevant positions, which are those which may be reached by "playing good chess". I think that's a sufficient criterion for relevancy although anyone is welcome to think of further critreria for "relevancy", for discussion.

When they solve chess, I'm pretty sure it would be a draw. I believe it's going to be solved in a year or two at longest (if it's not already but hadn't reported to broad public yet).

On each 1st move white play black would be having at least one drawing response.

Terminating the 50 moves rule eventually would have no effect to the solution(s) either.

#3702
Yes, part of it is probably already solved but not public.
Here is for example the most recent finished game of the ICCF World Championship.
That is 50 days per 10 moves, engines allowed. This is 99% sure to be a perfect game.
It ended in a 7-men endgame table base draw. To weakly solve chess is to prove that none of the 57 white moves could be replaced by a move that wins.

<<It ended in a 7-men endgame table base draw. To weakly solve chess is to prove that none of the 57 white moves could be replaced by a move that wins.>>

That's equivalent to a full solution, of course, or to what you're pleased to refer to as "weakly solved". It just means that there isn't a relevant permutation of moves which is capable of producing, by force, a result different from a draw.

Although we may be reasonably certain that there is no such line, we were reasonably certain of that before this 10 moves in 50 days match. It hasn't moved us on towards "a solution" by one iota, because the "solution" referred to consists of a deductive proof, rather than a reasonable and pragmatic assessment, which we already had.  It's reasonable to assume that no such deductive proof will ever be possible, since it would also have to be deductively proven that there were no errors in the proof, which also might be assumed to be impossible, since it would then have to be proven that the proof that the proof is correct would also have to be error-free. That's the trouble with deductive proofs that don't rest on established axioms. The only axiom that seems possible is one consisting of "reasonable surety" and so after the ten million years of calculation, or five years of calculation, depending on whom we prefer to believe, all we still have is an assumption ... in this case that the calculations were correct. Of course, it would make us even more sure our solution is correct.

But it wouldn't be a proof. So, after five millions of years (or five years ), we'll still have roughly the same level of certainty that we have now.

I agree with the first part, for all practical purposes chess has already been solved. 

And with the 50 move rule chess is likely a draw. Even with a "200 move rule" chess is also likely a draw. 

But I disagree with the last part, without the 50 move rule chess is likely a forced win for white. 

That's an interesting take what makes you think its a forced win for white.  I assume the opposite based on the fact that nearly every engine with the same programming from the starting position draws.  What makes you think white would have a forced winning line.   What line do you think white uses for this advantage seems like stockfish at high depth right now likes queens gambit declines but whenever i do things like depth 60 fish vs fish move for move its always a draw.  Granted I'm pretty sure it has the 50 move rule built in.  

Unfortunately,  while the conclusion for chess a reasonable belief, your unfortunate and (to be frank) characteristic inappropriate insult towards very intelligent people more knowledgeable than us merely reveals your lack of understanding. That is a hazard of such types of statements.

The reason is that there are plenty of examples of games where an ultraweak solution exists. This certainly makes the term meaningful (and useful to game theorists).

A large class of such games is where the rules ensure that the result is a win for one player or the other (no draws) and strategy-stealing is possible. It is simple to prove the first player has a winning strategy in such games, yet in complex examples it may be impractical to determine what this strategy is.  Note that in many other games where draws are possible, the same argument shows the second player cannot have a winning strategy. Tictactoe and many variants are examples of this.

[To be clear, the rules of games like chess, shogi, checkers and go don't enable this useful technique].

This is a recurrent question. I remember when Patriot started to argue that, She wrote that she deliberately chose a position based more on a coin toss than a conviction. I think that's code for "deliberately chose the opposing view". Later, I recall her saying that she's more and more convinced that it's true. However, I know she's an intelligent, diplomatic and probably obstinate woman. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person believes that it's a forced win, although there is a strand of thought based on the new and wondrous idea that games that are beyond the limits of human endurance may be wins. I don't buy that either. Then again, I don't believe an intelligent person can possibly believe that chess can be solved in five years and yet ....

If you're going to insult technical language as inaccurate, it's best not to pick on anything in STEM... game theory is a branch of mathematics, so it's easy to guess that "ultra weak" will have both a precise and meaningful definition.

Any other field though, sure, both their language (and ideas) are often inexact and even frivolous.

#3705
"without the 50 move rule chess is likely a forced win for white"
++ No, not at all. The 50 moves rule is in practice never invoked before the 7 men endgame table base is reached, neither in top GM games, nor in ICCF correspondence.
Without the 3-fold repetition rule it might be a win, because the 3-fold repetition is a major drawing resource both in GM games and in ICCF correspondence. I mean 3 fold repetition is a loss, like in Stratego or Go.

I beg to differ. I'm not insulting you or them in any way. I'm disagreeing with them. My remark wasn't based on any desire to be insulting. It was merely based on what I clearly believe to be the case. We already know that whenever you and I have differed, although occasionally I've accepted correction, most of the time the differences had been due to your lack of ability to follow something that to me is very clear. btickler is even more prominently unable to follow arguments that appear even remotely complex. This isn't meant as an insult. There are many people here in this forum who have less difficulty in following me than you two do. All in all, this comment of yours is nothing but an argument from authority, based on the obvious fact that you cannot follow even the exceptionally clear and simplified idea that I put forward in that post.

If you had a material objection, I'm sure you would have posted it because you can be quite altruistic and unlike many, my perhaps exceptional clarity and ability is based on a desire to learn, as well as to junk all ideas that seem to be badly motivated.

Of course, if you wish to interpret any disagreement with a person, who is assumed to be more knowledgeable, as an insult to them, then that is your affair. Indeed, one could say that it's your problem and perhaps it's an indication of your limitations, rather than of mine??

To me, simple as I am, it does seem that you are the one who is insulted. Because you believe them implicitly, perhaps: and hence my post above.

Your words were <<As jargon, "ultra weak" is just another bit of complete nonsense, invented by people who didn't know any better.>>

This is false and an unjustifiable insult to the game theorist who invented the term (just to be clear, that was not me, so your most recent post is - surprise, surprise - also false).

"Ultra-weak" is a meaningful and useful term used by game theorists in several 21st century peer-reviewed papers, for example:

Calculating Ultra-Strong and Extended Solutions for Nine Men's Morris, Morabaraba, and Lasker Morris - IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 8(3), July 2014