Chess will never be solved, here's why

Beg your pardon, that was to Elroch. Sorry if I was confusing.

The answer is really very simple: we have to accept there is uncertainty.

I would have thought you would agree on the semantics that where there is uncertainty, the correct word is "believe" rather than "know".

For example, a very rational person holds a lottery tick and says "I believe I will not win the superdraw tonight". She may be aware that there is a theoretical 1 in 500,000,000 chance of winning the roll-over prize. She does not say "I know I will not win the superdraw tonight" because she considers the distinction based on a very unlikely 2 in a billion chance important and it may have been why she bought a ticket.

Now, here is an example of a less rational person, apparently incapable of understanding this point:

Firstly, no it isn't.  Being "widely hypothesised" is so different to being a certainty that it is surprising that anyone would make the claim that the two are the same.

Given this degree of sloppiness it is no surprise that I was unable to justify the claim that Fischer ever said "chess is a draw" (not that if he had it would carry any more weight than other things he said that were false).  Rather I find that Fischer thought that it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically, for which there are three references.  Note the appropriate uncertainty.

No idea what this refers to, I'm sorry to say.

But we also have to accept that the proposition that we have to accept uncertainty is not necessarily on firm ground. I wish we could discuss religion and in particular, the different interpretations of agnosticism. But I think I can do it this way, safely.

The normal interpretation of agnosticism was "not knowing". Agnosticism refers just as much to a knowledge of whether chess is drawn as to anything else, so it should be ok.

Dawkins et al championed the idea that if someone can not know deductively, then in fact they are agnostics, whether or not they believe themselves to be atheists.

I think of myself as being gnostic, regarding the question of whether chess is a draw. I believe that I have sufficient grounds to know it's a draw and someone else telling me I don't isn't going to convince me, because of the parallel with something else. I believe I have the expertise and judgement to know it's a draw and also to know that it is impossible that a full solution can be achieved, such that my supposition can be confirmed or refuted. I don't believe that there's any uncertainty because there is a confirming principle.

I've introduced the supporting principle previously. It's regarding the trend, with each pair of moves, for the opening imbalance to be evened out. It would require a reversal of this trend, to the extent that, at a time and point in the game which is hidden, all games must suffer a reversal of this trend. I believe I am entitled to believe on theoretical grounds that it is definitely a draw and I also believe that I'm entitled to believe that my understanding of this theoretical approach is such that there is no hint at all that it is possible for anyone to show that it's false.

So I can know that chess is a draw. Due to greater expertise, actually.

No. We are just as close to proving chess is a forced win for white as we are to proving chess is a draw. So far nobody has even come close to proving either one. Not even close.  Lots and lots of guesses, lots of assumptions, lots of hypothesizing and grandstanding. Lots of faith, lots of belief, lots of wishful thinking. But no proof.

So as long as the two choices are equal, and they are, then there is no harm in choosing either one. Whatever your personal preference is on the topic, it's perfectly valid.  Which is why for those who say it MUST be one way, and can't be the other, prove it. Obviously it can't be proven, so until it can, it's probably best to keep an open mind on all the possibilities. 

You believe a full solution to chess can be found within 5 years? Well, you also seem to believe chess is a draw, so there's that. 

Of course both those things are possible. I just don't think either one is very likely. You might believe chess will be proven a draw within 5 years, I believe it will be proven a forced white win within 200 years. And there is always the possibility we are both half right. Maybe chess will be proven a forced white win in 5 years. Or proven a draw within 200 years. 

You're definitely wrong there, because in no way is it as close to proving it's a win as a draw. There isn't even a hint that it's a win, so you're falling back on the pseudo-theory of agnosticism being the only possible result of a failure to deduce.

I clicked on Elroch's link.

<<<<Chess theorists have long debated how enduring White's initiative is and whether, if both sides play perfectly, the game should end in a win for White or a draw. George Walker wrote in 1846 that, "The first move is an advantage, ... but if properly answered, the first move is of little worth".^[29] Steinitz, the first World Champion, who is widely considered the father of modern chess,^[30][31][32] wrote in 1889, "It is now conceded by all experts that by proper play on both sides the legitimate issue of a game ought to be a draw."^[33] Lasker and Capablanca, the second and third World Champions, agreed.^[34][35][36] Reuben Fine, one of the world's leading players from 1936 to 1951,^[37] wrote that White's opening advantage is too intangible to be sufficient for a win without an error by Black.^[38]>>>>

But the above is improperly described in its introduction. The ensuing isn't evidence of  even the beginnings of a debate. Each past Master is expressing certainty that it's drawn.

ie, "is sufficient"
"is now conceded"
"is of little worth"

No hint of a maybe amongst them.

#3852

"We are just as close to proving chess is a forced win for white as we are to proving chess is a draw." ++ And as chess is a forced win for black too?
There is massive evidence for chess being a draw, none for a white or black win.

"Lots and lots of guesses, lots of assumptions, lots of hypothesizing and grandstanding. Lots of faith, lots of belief, lots of wishful thinking."
++ Lots of facts and figures. AlphaZero, TCEC, ICCF, human GM.

"So as long as the two choices are equal" ++ You mean the 3 choices?

"and they are"
++ They are not. It is not because there are 3 possibilities that they are equally likely.

"Whatever your personal preference is on the topic, it's perfectly valid."
++ No, that is not true.
Look at the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6. There are 3 possibilities: a draw, a white win, a black win. They are not equally likely. I know black wins this position, but I do not have a full game tree ending in checkmate for all possibilities. I know it is a forced checkmate, but I do not know in how many moves.

"Which is why for those who say it MUST be one way, and can't be the other, prove it."
++ I have listed the empirical (AlphaZero, TCEC, ICCF, human GM) and theoretical (1 tempo = 1/3 pawn < 1 pawn) evidence.
Even more: each move dilutes the initial tempo up, so if there were a white win, then it would be a short win, not a long one. However, a short win would have been found long ago.
Even more: the simpler game Checkers (32 squares, 24 men, 2 kinds of men) took 10^14 positions to weakly solve, more than 10^9 for Losing Chess (64 squares, 32 men, 6 kinds of men, just like chess) because Losing Chess is a white win with 1 e3 and Checkers is a draw. A draw is harder to prove than a win. If chess were a forced win, then it would have been weakly solved before Checkers.

"Obviously it can't be proven"
++ Chess is a finite game so obviously it can be proven.
Based on facts and figures I agree with Sveshnikov that chess can be weakly solved in 5 years.

<<The view that a game of chess should end in a draw given best play prevails. Even if it cannot be proved, this assumption is considered "safe" by Rowson and "logical" by Adorján.^[39][40] Watson agrees that "the proper result of a perfectly played chess game ... is a draw. ... Of course, I can't prove this, but I doubt that you can find a single strong player who would disagree. ... I remember Kasparov, after a last-round draw, explaining to the waiting reporters: 'Well, chess is a draw.'"^[41] World Champion Bobby Fischer thought that "it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically".^[42][43][44] Similarly, British grandmaster Nigel Short wrote that "... with perfect play, God versus God ... chess is a draw".<sup>[45]>>

I would go with Rowson's "safe".</sup>

Definitely disagree with the last bit but agree with the preceding. Pragmatically, chess is infinite.

I could be definitely wrong. All you have to do is prove chess is a draw. From what I've seen nobody has even come close to that. I know lots of people have strong opinions and strong beliefs, but that's not proof. 

It would be like you can "prove" you can't win the lottery. As proof you buy a lottery ticket, using the best skills available. You don't win. You you do it again, but don't win. Pretty soon 99% of the time you don't win. Pretty soon virtually every time you play the lottery, you don't win. It may even be a fact that you don't win 99.99% of the time. So the assumption is that it's impossible to win the lottery. It's a fact. It can't be done. Because over 99.99% of lottery plays are not wins. 

But I don't consider that proof. I consider that a belief. 

If you can prove that 100% of all chess games, played with the "best moves" whatever that might be at the current moment, are draws, then that would be a start. But so far nobody has ever done that. 

So until then we are not any closer to proving either side. But it would be interesting to see if at the highest level if whites win percentage is going up, going down, or staying the same. 

I've pointed out that we already have a proof that chess is drawn. It just isn't deductive.

A deductive proof would be

Chess is drawn if all custard is custard coloured.
All custard is custard coloured.
Therefore chess is a draw.

That's a syllogism. All you have to do is prove that the first two propositions are true and you know beyond doubt that chess is a draw.

It means, doesn't it, that a proof is very trivial thing? Instead, let's use our minds a bit.

You put a period after that first sentence when it should be a comma .

@Optimissed

I have read your essay carefully. I have already stated in a previous post that since logic is based on postulates, in fact deductions are a form of faith. Therefore I do not agree with your distinction between cultists, scientists and theorists; we are all cultists to start with. But this discussion about epistemology and philosophy of science may lead too much off topic. The core point is that without an exhaustive proof, no scientific theory can be guaranteed to hold true in any possible case. Galilean relativity, Newton's law of gravitation and classical mechanics are golden examples. They were thought to be always true, "unbeatable" so to speak, and they were consistent with centuries of experiments. There was no evidence that they might produce quite inaccurate predictions. We all know how it went: they fail miserably under some circumstances.

In game theory, "optimal" is not a casual attribute. For chess, it means that an optimal player would be unbeatable in a match with an even number of games: if the game value is a draw, the optimal player would at least draw every game; if it's a win for either colour, the optimal player would always force the win with that colour. Therefore, the optimal player cannot score less than 50% of the points. Without a mathematical, exhaustive proof, a player cannot be guaranteed to be optimal, exactly like a scientific theory, without an exhaustive proof, cannot be guaranteed to always hold true.

This is not what people expect, when they read something like "the game xyz has been solved". They think about a definitive solution, that nobody will be able to disprove, ever.

Did you know that your username means "tired out" in Italian?

If only the topic of this post were "tell us what you know about chess being a forced draw"...oh wait, it's about solving chess, which is defined as proving it past personal belief.

All this diatribe accomplishes is to say "we have an opinion and we have stated it".  Bravo.

From what I've heard not every game at the highest level is a draw. Sometimes one side wins. So if almost all chess games are draws that means chess is a draw, that also means since almost all lottery plays are not wins, winning the lottery is not possible. 

I understand that many chess games are draws. But I also understand that most lottery plays are not wins. For me, that doesn't prove anything. It's a pattern. But not proof.

If chess has been proven to be a draw, why are there wins? If it's been proven to be a draw, why do people disagree? There must be some reason not everyone agrees. 

I could just as easily say because white has a first move advantage, AND the percentage of white wins at the highest level goes up, that's proof chess is a forced win for white. But until white wins every single time it's only evidence, not proof. And until all games are draws it's evidence, not proof. 

Even if every one of a billion games between the top players were draws, this would not prove chess to be a draw. The reason is that it is at least conceivable that there is a very narrow winning strategy that requires dozens of unique moves in every line and the players are just too weak to find them all (like current top engines are too weak to accurately play complex tablebase positions without help).