Chess will never be solved, here's why

#3775

"else... it is plausible anyway"
++ No, not at all. You can put forward hypotheses like "Chess is a white win in 500" , or "Chess is a black win in 500", but then you have to at least put forward some begin of evidence to support that. There is no such evidence. On the contrary there is ample evidence that chess is a draw.

"Chess is a draw." ++ Yes indeed.

"For calculations tygxc and tygxc only believes correct." ++ If you do not understand simple high school math, then that is OK, but what you do not understand is not incorrect.

It does not need to be a win in 500 and absence of evidence is not a proof. It's an "argument from ignorance", one of the many fallacies you use.

I repeat: period. Mathematically proven. No doubt. 100% sure... So why nobody wrote a paper to declare chess ultra-weakly solved is a mistery.

Because tygxc and tygxc only believes that if someone thinks his calculations are flawed, it's because s/he does not understand them, not because they can be, for example, based on false premises. And I am not the only one thinking that. You are the only one thinking otherwise. Is that a proof that you are wrong? No, but since you talk about your calculations as if they were confirmed and accepted by everyone on this planet, I just point out that this is not the case. They are accepted only by you.

#3777

"absence of evidence is not a proof" ++ No, that is true. But there is not even begin of evidence that chess is a white win or a black win. There is ample evidence that chess is a draw.

"Mathematically proven" ++ No chess is a draw is known, but not yet formally proven.
"No doubt. 100% sure" ++ Indeed, no doubt, 100% sure.
"why nobody wrote a paper"
++ Many experts wrote chess is a draw and provided arguments, there is not yet a formal proof.

"calculations as if they were confirmed and accepted by everyone on this planet"
++ If I calculate the area of a square with 1 m side to be 1 m², then I need neither confirmation nor acceptance, that is simple and true. If I were to find a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, then I would need confirmation and acceptance, but not by everyone on this planet.

Many things have been "known" by some people (not by others) and then proven to be false. It is smart not to use the word "know" inappropriately. This is true even when it is a good bet that the guess is true.

A proof of the Riemann hypothesis would not have to be verified by everyone, but here the correct analogy is that you claim to "know" the Riemann hypothesis is true and the majority of those here point out to you that you do not have a proof and that that is crucial.

So, since there is no proof that chess is not a win, it's plausible that chess is a win. Again, you just confirm what people say, but you try to make it appear the opposite.

You have used this kind of argument many times: "it is known, 100% sure, but not proven". If you know something with 100% of certainity without an exhaustive proof, you are some sort of clairvoyant. If you have such capabilities I cannot say, but for a scientist something is known with 100% of certainity when it is exhaustively proven, otherwise it is faith. Since just one forced winning line is enough to make invalid all the drawing lines, without a mathematical proof that chess is a draw, the game cannot be declared ultra-weakly solved, no matter what you or chess experts may believe.

Manipulation again. You accuately did not quote the rest of my sentence: "[ . . . ] to declare chess ultra-weakly solved is a mistery". Indeed, yours is another confirmation, but again you try to make it appear as an objection.

But everyone agrees that 1m × 1m = 1m². I just pointed out that you and only you think that your "Riemann Hypothesis proof" is correct.

I have had enough of arguing with you for today. Everyone can draw their conclusions from the above.

#3779
It is a good bet that the 'guess' that the Sun will rise tomorrow is true.
We do not 'know' that. The Sun might be swallowed by a wormhole tonight.

Yes, we can. I think it's a pity that tygxc continues to make the 5 years claim, irrespective of whether that's correct. I personally think it's wildly incorrect, along with many others who think the same way, because it detracts from the main part of his argument, which is absolutely correct.

@haiaku, based on the above, yes, there are conclusions which can be drawn. Based on the above, it is clearly yourself who appears not to understand scientific principles. All science rests primarily on evidence. Hypothesising, which is what you and @lFPatriotGames are doing, is less than unreliable where there's no evidence to support it. Evidence can even be theoretical, if it's solid enough but here it's no more than a misplaced belief that hypothesis trumps evidence where the evidence isn't completely direct. Here, there's no direct evidence but there is still sufficient to be completely sure, as tygxc states.

I need to repost the post I made a couple of days ago, concerning an allegory about belief in the existence of a certain dragon. It clearly demonstrates the difference between belief that's superstitious (which you're crediting tygxc with), belief that's scientifically based upon evidence, and belief that's based on unsupported hypothesis, which you're demonstrating.

@Optimissed,

Your vision of science is (no offense) old school, positivistic. I follow Popper's approach: nothing can be really sure if you don't have all the necessary informations and since we do not know everything about our universe, we do not know whether what we don't know is not necessary to full understand what we already "know". @Elroch mentioned Jaynes, too. I think that most scientists today are not positivists, even if they do not talk much about that; nevertheless you know that they refrain to call QM or GR other than "theories", even if these have been well supported by experiments for more than a century. So, no, we don't even know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow: in the future, we could find evidence that a star can explode for inexplicable (to current knowledge) reasons, even if such an event would be extremely rare, of course, otherwise we would have already observed many times stars like the sun explode for no apparent reason.

As for chess, it is justified to hypothesize that the game may be other than a draw, because just one forcing winning line would render all the drawing lines irrelevant to the topic. That's why many can say "chess is a draw", or better "chess is likely a draw", but no one dares to write a paper stating that chess is ultra-weakly solved.

#3779

"So, since there is no proof that chess is not a win, it's plausible that chess is a win."
++ No. a priori there are 3 mutually exclusive hypotheses.
1) Chess is a draw
2) Chess is a win for white
3) Chess is a win for black
There is massive evidence for 1)
There is no begin of evidence for 2) and it would contradict certain observed facts
There is no begin of evidence for 3) and it would contradict certain observed facts

"You have used this kind of argument many times" ++ It is no argument, it is an observation: 'provability is a higher degree of truth' - Scientific American

"for a scientist something is known with 100% of certainity when it is exhaustively proven,"
++ That is false. In most sciences including biology, chemistry, physics, and even in some branches of mathematics like statistics and probablility no exhaustive proof is required.
'An apple falls downward' That is true, but not proven. All apples so far observed have fallen downward, but maybe on one day in one place an apple will fall upward... We do not know, it is not proven.

"one forced winning line is enough to make invalid all the drawing lines"
++ That is true, but that one line would have some signs. If it were observed, that a remarkable high number of ICCF games with the Grünfeld Defence were won for black, then 1 d4 might be refuted and a win for black. If it were observed, that the number of white wins starts to rise in ICCF, then that might be an indication that there might be a forced white win. The facts are different: the higher the level, the more draws.

I compare the forced white or black win to a unicorn. I know unicorns do not exist, but I cannot prove that. If you believe unicorns exist, then you have to provide at least begin of evidence. It is not enough to say horses exist and animals with two horns exist, so a unicorn is likely to exist as well. Evidence would be if you capture one or photograph one. Even if you find a hoof imprint or some manure or part of a skeleton and you can prove that it is not from a horse or from a known animal with two horns, that would at least be begin of evidence.

"the game cannot be declared ultra-weakly solved" ++ Right, there is not yet a formal proof.

#3783
'you know that they refrain to call QM or GR other than "theories",'
++ No, not at all. A century ago people spoke of 'Quantum Theory' and 'Relativity Theory'. Nowadays it is just Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics, Special Relativity, General Relativity... These are even daily used in the engineering of LED, laser, computers, particle accelerators... Those are no longer 'theories'.

'no one dares to write a paper stating that chess is ultra-weakly solved'
++ It is not a matter of daring. Many experts have written that chess is a draw.
However, there is not yet a formal proof.

You are completely mistaken. You seem to misunderstand completely the idea of positivism (I'm nowhere near being a positivist ... just the opposite in fact) and also the tension which exists between science, which is always evidence led even though it seeks to establish a body of theory, with hypothesis.

The best thing for you is to read my repost, #3782 and to base your comments on that. Although it's allegorical, it outlines the basic conflicts which have confused you. Unless you approach it in that way, from the ground up, it will not be possible to see where you base your judgements.

The reason I sometimes criticised you, from the beginning of your posting here, is that I could tell there are basic conflicts within your model of science. Less astute people, like Elroch, as an example, although intelligent, are less likely to pick up on them.

tygxc wrote this many times. It is an unreferenced (where exactly did he read that? He does not remember, so nobody can falsify him), out of the context, ambiguous ("higher degree"?) and irrelevant statement, because if it says that something can be true without having been proven (which is just obvious), it does not state that tygxc knows what is true without proofs.

The usual deceptions...

Emphases in green are mine:

"General relativity, also known as the general theory of relativity and Einstein's theory of gravity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and is the current description of gravitation in modern physics." [1]

"Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles." [2]

Now of course he will say that I simply read these things on Wikipedia and that he knows much better, but it is not true. Beware the pseudoscientists!

#3787
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anybody can edit there.
The entries are 'general relativity' and 'quantum mechanics', not 'relativity theory' or 'quantum theory' as they were formerly known.
They are considered true as they are consistent with observed facts, but they are not formally proven.

Which conflicts?

Ok, so you are not a positivist (I said that because you said that to you mathematical induction does not prove things better than inductive reasoning), but how do you prove things? To me a statement is proven when it holds true in any possible case. That does not mean that in real life or during a game of chess I do not make decisions based on incomplete informations. I bet, because I am compelled to do so or because the benefit-cost ratio is advantageous. But if we bet that the game-theoretic value of chess is a draw, how on earth could we say, without an exhaustive proof, that it is a draw with 100% of certainity?

The way tygxc plays with words is simply scandalous. The fact that the entries do not include the word "theory" does not mean that they are not considered theories anymore. AFAIK, on any text book from high school up, they are still defined as theories. I used Wikipedia because it is accessible to everyone. On such important and general matters, if someone made the mistake to consider the subject a theory when it is not, it would be corrected quite soon.

The reason why they are theories is because the principles they are based upon cannot be exhaustively proven. For example, the special relativity postulates that the laws of physics are the same in any inertial system of reference. We cannot prove it true, because we do not know all the laws of physics (possibly we do not know any law of physics) and we cannot make tests in any possible inertial system of reference. The predictions of the theory are confirmed by experiments conceived to falsify it, so that is an indirect evidence, but not a definitive proof, that the postulate is correct.

The discussion about the philosophy of science is a bit off topic, though. Chess is a board game of perfect information: such games are declared solved when a mathematical (i.e. exhaustive) proof is found. Treating chess in a different way would be an unjustified privilege, imho, even if the game is still too complex to complete the task in a reasonable time. Does someone want to find a non-mathematical "solution"? Ok but do not call that "solution", because this term is already used in game theory; it is misleading to use it for something qualitatively very different.

#3790
Wikipedia gives a reference, but misquotes it.
This is what the source, a true Physicist wrote:
“Quantum mechanics” is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. 
No 'theory' here.

Einstein originally called his brainchild Relativity Theory. That was correct: there was not yet experimental confirmation. After measurements (even during the First World War, to measure during a solar eclipse) had confirmed it, it was called Relativity, though the historical Relativity Theory was still used by laymen and by people who do not understand.

"Chess is a board game of perfect information. ++ That is right, but thermodynamics is also statistical. All laws of thermodynamics, or Statistical Physics as it is called in jargon, are derived from probability calculations. Even quantum mechanics is probabilistic: the wave function in the Schrödinger Equation relates to probability.

"this term is already used in game theory" ++ Fully correct.
'Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition.'
That 'strategy' can be a proof tree, but can also be a set of knowledge rules.
Allen solved Connect Four by brute force and Allis independently by a set of 7 rules.
It is my conviction that chess should be solved by a combination of brute force (the cloud engines) and knowledge (the good assistants, i.e. (grand)masters).

Any guess about the ultimate outcome of chess is hypothesizing. The guess "chess is a forced win for white" is just as valid as the guess "chess is a draw". Both are equal because both have good reasons to exist. 

I think chess is way too difficult for any human to solve, or even come close to solving. So computers will have to do most of the work. And even then it might not be enough. Maybe chess is unsolvable. But for all practical purposes (where people play chess) it's solved already. And since good computers have only been around for about 30 years it seems to me it's far, far too early to be making any announcements about future chess solving. Maybe in 100 years we'll have  better hypothesizing. 

I also think the reason tygxc thinks chess can be solved in 5 years is the same reason he thinks it's a draw. Wishful thinking. Personal belief. Faith. Maybe he's right, but my guess is that in 5 years we will see more of the same pattern of the last 30 years. 

#3792

"The guess "chess is a forced win for white" is just as valid as the guess "chess is a draw"."
++ And just as valid as 'chess is a forced win for black'? It is not because there are 3 mutually exclusive possibilities that they are equally valid. There is massive evidence for a draw and no evidence for a forced win either for black or white. 

"I think chess is way too difficult for any human to solve, or even come close to solving."
++ Only the number of legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions 10^17 defines the difficulty.

"So computers will have to do most of the work."
++ No, computers do a part and human grandmasters do another part. Humans must initiate and terminate the calculations. That is also how Losing Chess and Checkers have been solved.

"Maybe chess is unsolvable."
++ Chess is finite  thus solvable. How much time and effort is needed is up to discussion.

"I also think the reason tygxc thinks chess can be solved in 5 years is the same reason he thinks it's a draw." ++ Wrong. I got the 5 years from GM Sveshnikov and I was surprised.  So I checked facts and figures and found he was right.
Same for chess is a draw. I got that from Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Adorjan, Kasparov, Kramnik. So I checked the facts and found they were right. 

Then prove it.