Chess will never be solved, here's why

Nope.

Because unlike the two positions you showed, the One I composed, is not shown yet, to be an automatic Draw.

Nice try though, Troll!

THREAD K*LLER.

@4731
"Si far, king's gambit is the only opening that has been "solved", afaik."
++ More than that. We have over 1000 perfect games with no errors from the ICCF WC Finals.

Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.

A strategy for the initial position to achieve the game-theoretic value of a draw against any opposition from white is to follow an ICCF WC Finals drawn game for as long as possible and as soon as white deviates to switch to the exhaustive analysis of said ICCF game.

So the problem boils down to analysing the > 1000 ICCF WC Finals draws
towards the 7-men endgame table base.

Ah, yes. Now you explain it, it makes sense.

But I think the answer is then just a double application of your remarkably original method of proof.

This is obviously a draw.

If only one file determines a draw, then, by your method, a set up with all the files shouldn't make any difference.

So this is also a draw.

And as you remarked; 

"If only all Pawns for both sides determines a win for White or Black or Both Sides, then a set up with all the pieces shouldn't make any difference."

So chess is solved. It's a draw.

(I've assumed "a win for Both Sides" means the same as "a draw".)

Hello Sir,

If The Only Pawns Game, end in a Win or Loss for one of the Sides, Or a Draw...

Then no maneuvering with the Pieces, even with the skills possessed by Capablanca should change this result.

Well, given that it's an Only Pawns game, that would seem reasonable. Presumably they're not allowed to promote if it's Only Pawns. Strictly speaking, the kings shouldn't be there.

200 years ago the pinnacle of technology was propelling a boat across a river with steam.

Right now I am spending less than 20 seconds to send electronic signals through thousands of miles of cables to convey a message that is available to the entirety of humanity.

200 years from now people will be embarrassed to learn that some of their ancestors thought a game like chess might never be solved. "Solve chess" is more likely to be a 7th grade computer science project than it is an insurmountable obstacle for the humans of 2222, let alone what we'll be capable of in the years beyond that.

This argument works for everything, and so also works for nothing .

If you put the horizon at a more foreseeable 50 years, we're not even remotely close even with the most optimistic advancements on the white board.  Heck, we'll be lucky to get past a 10-12 man tablebase by then.  While it is true that someone 200 years ago could not have predicted anything like our world today, it would still have been safe to say 200 years ago that mankind would not be colonizing other solar systems by the year 2000, and colonizing other solar systems is within the same realm of difficulty as traversing 10^44 positions and evaluating and storing the results.  Both would require mining the heck out of our asteroid belt, for example .

@4746
"we'll be lucky to get past a 10-12 man tablebase by then"
++ Strongly solving chess i.e. a 32-men table base is out of reach now.

Weakly solving Chess can be done in 5 years with existing computers.

No, it can't.  Around and around we go ...

@4748
"Around and around we go"
++ You still do not understand the difference between
strongly solving Chess: a 32-men table base with 10^44 positions and
weakly solving chess: proving black can draw against all reasonable white tries, requiring 10^17 relevant positions.
Losing Chess has been weakly solved with 10^9 positions only, not 10^44.

I understand that 10^17 is a made up number nobody agrees with but you, and that in a another couple of years when it's been 5 years since you started spouting this stuff, people are going to be twice as dismissive of your ideas as people already are now.

@4751
You keep mentioning the 10^44 legal positions, which is the number for strongly solving chess.
Weakly solving chess needs far less than 10^44 and far less than 10^37 positions.
Losing Chess has been weakly solved with only 10^9 positions, not 10^44.
Weakly solving Chess needs more than 10^9.
Weakly solving Chess only needs the sensible, reachable, and relevant positions.
Weakly solving Chess only needs a strategy, not all strategies.
My calculations lead to 10^17 positions.
So chess can be weakly solved with present computers, like GM Sveshnikov prophecised.
Of course 3 cloud engines or 3000 desktops and 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters during 5 years is a major undertaking costing about 3 million $.

Biggest problem bolded above.  Keep trying, I guess...you have a few more years.  No using the $3 million dollar excuse...IBM paid more than that to create Deep Blue.  You are basically talking about 1 minute of ads in the Super Bowl.  If your premise is sound, you should have no problems finding an investor who wants the publicity of solving chess.  Hop to it .

The disagreement is entirely a matter of semantics.  There is absolutely no doubt from @tygxc's posts that he interprets "weakly solve" as meaning "fail to weakly solve". He makes this clear by explicitly referring to ignoring large numbers of legal defensive moves based on ad hoc heuristics derived from unreliable approximate rules and intuitive human positional ideas.

So, translating into standard language, @tygxc claims he can fail to weakly solve chess by analysing 10^17 positions and I agree with him. Now he needs to get the funding for this great endeavour.

I feel it is important to emphasise this difference of terminology in all future discussion.

@4754

"The disagreement is entirely a matter of semantics."
++ There is no semantics here, only logic.
'Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.' No less, no more.
A strategy, not all strategies.
Any opposition, i.e. against all moves that oppose against achieving the game-theoretic value.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, 1 e4 d5 2 Qg4, 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1 can be dismissed.

No. In normal usage, "weakly solved" means that for the initial strategy, two strategies have been PROVEN to achieve results which are consistent against ALL responses. Note emphasis.

In your usage it means failing to prove that some legal responses against a strategy don't work, justifying this inadequacy by glibly claiming that they are irrelevant based on vaguely defined rules derived by induction from small, imprecise samples. Thank you for providing some examples in your post.

It is important to distinguish this, since you have deliberated obfuscated by misusing the term.

@4756
No. The definition is:
'Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.'
You turn it into strongly solving.
Weakly solving is hard enough as it is.
5 years full time for 3 powerful computers and 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters is a huge task.

Drawing attention to your erroneous thinking is not significant.

Chess is a finite deterministic game of perfect information. All theorems applying to this class of games apply to chess.

@4761
++ You do not understand.
If you require "against ALL responses" and for both sides, then you end up with all legal moves and thus all legal positions and thus a strong solution of chess.

This is the definition:
'Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.'
It is carefully worded, applies not only to chess, and even applies to e.g. the Lasker proposal to score 10-0 for checkmate, 8-2 for stalemate, 6-4 for a bare king and 5-5 for the draw as we know it.

'Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based
methods in game-solving programs.' 5.2 p. 303
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527