Chess will never be solved, here's why

#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.

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.

++ On no basis at all. I agree with Sveshnikov it can be done in 5 years.

Goos one 🤣🤣🤣

we are witnesses of a slack jaw dimness here

🤣🤣🤣

Having thought about it for a few minutes while toasting some crumpets, I've arrived at the following conclusion.

No-one here has any just nor reasonable grounds to contradict the simple assertion, by tygxc and myself, that we know that chess is a draw by best play for both sides.

That is because you would be attempting to interdict our use of the verb "to know" and our correct use of it here. If you veto philosophically based discussion, which can only be because you don't understand it, then you cannot discuss what is meant by "knowing". If you have no understanding of the psychology of epistemology, or in plain English, of understanding knowledge and belief, you have no business on this thread in anything but a learning capacity.

That definitely applies to haiaku and to all others who have fixed  but highly simplistic opinions on this. If you felt able to comment on my little discourse on superstition, science and hypothesis, you would have attempted to do so by now. It's absolutely necessary to engage, if you don't wish to look like children. That's because you are trying to use philosophy and psychology to claim that tygxc and I cannot know something we claim to know, whilst having no knowledge of what you're talking about.

In particular, haiaku's hiding behind his "understanding" of science is ridiculous.

@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.


You've started extremely badly. What do you imagine you know of my deepest thoughts on this subject? You need to go with the childish portrayal I made and not kick up arguments immediately, on the mistaken assumption that "you know better". Instead, try to work out where we agree and base your points of argument on them, rather than where you imagine we differ. Your imagination is liable to run riot and you should get off to a safe start, rather than portray yourself badly, because your differences are either semantic or can easily be ironed out.

A deduction is not a form of faith. That is because, in order to communicate, we accept that a deduction or syllogism is no more than a rearrangement of ideas. There should be no need for a faith that ideas don't suddenly change, because that would mean that there's no communication in any case. So your faith is nothing more than that we each have the same understanding of what a deduction is. I'm fairly sure we do. Take a look at my deduction that chess is a draw, which I made in my previous post, based on the colour of custard.

But this discussion about epistemology and philosophy of science may lead too much off topic.

No, it's on topic. You can't get out of it that easily. It's only off topic to someone who doesn't understand the topic. But you claim to understand the topic.

The core point is that without an exhaustive proof, there is no doubt that 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.

Not at all. They produce perfectly accurate results that are suitable for the environment in which they were conceived. You seem to be wanting to introduce a fallacy ... that of assuming that there are mysterious circumstances that alter the characteristics of chess, perhaps only when computers are playing or a game's more than 200 moves long. Doesn't work, because a game of chess is well-defined and plays out within those limits. The rules do not allow for weird, relativistic effects within chess, so you're wrong again.

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 confused. The first part is unnecessary. At least we know what we mean by "best play" or perhaps, "optimal", because we've been talking about it, in various threads, for about four years now and we did reach a consensus. Off the top of my head, optimal play is that which doesn't alter the game result negatively, for the player who made that move. Some like to say "from the game-theoretic value" but that's unnecessary, because it doesn't add anything useful. Just an illusion of grandeur.

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.

You could never be sure that there wasn't a mistake in the analysis, due to a glitch of some unexpected kind. So wrong again, I'm afraid. You really needed to do what I asked you to do and comment on what I wrote, because we didn't make any progress doing it your way. You didn't make any useful points.

#3838

"That figure is meaningless, as it is completely relative to the various engines' levels of play."
++ More time = higher level = more draws

"chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment"
++ That is a ridiculous argument with no point at all. Should we ask a hockey player then?

No.  You shouldn't ask *any* players, of any game or sport, a question like that.  Do you ask a person riding a roller coaster to design roller coasters?

"Neither has written any kind of attempted proof." ++ But they expressed their expert opinions.

Read the topic again.  We're not debating opinions.  We're debating the possibility of proof.

"Solving chess cannot be achieved using Stockfish.  Not now, not 5 years from now.  Not 500 years from now." ++ That is your misguided opinion, without anything to back it up.

"Not one of them.  They would not even say that chess is a forced draw without hedging their statements, never mind how to get to that conclusion." ++ They did say that.

Nope, time after time, decade after decade, GMs have made statements about draws, and when pressed they always hedge their bets.  Because they are smart enough to know that they don't know the answer.

"So you agree with me then, he was pandering to an audience."
++ He was giving an interview to leave a legacy, as he was terminally ill with cancer.

What a great time to make a claim nobody will ever be able to call you out on...

"Your "50% accuracy" is a number that has no meaning in terms of solving chess."
++ You misunderstand. 50% accuracy is an arbitrary threshold to distinguish the few sensible positions from many non-sensible positions. If a position results from a game with 99% or 100% accuracy, then that does not mean the position results from perfect play. If a position results from a game with 49% accuracy, then that means the position does not result from perfect play.

Any number you stick in front of "accuracy" here is garbage, because the calculations that derived them are flawed.

"Those evaluations change in a matter of weeks and sometimes days, with each new release."
++ Yes, but that does not matter. 99% today may be 100% or 96% tomorrow, and 49% today may be 42% or 62% tomorrow, but never 100% or 99%.
Besides the > 50% criterium is only used to define sensible positions to estimate the time needed to weakly solve chess, not in the actual solving.

If you eliminate a single position from evaluation based on your fuzzy criteria, your solution fails on the spot.

"These arguments are no better now" ++ Those are solid arguments based on facts and figures, unlike your own ridiculous 'million years' based on erroneous toilet paper scribbling.

Lol.  No, my calculations on current supercomputer capabilities and what it would take using current technology to solve chess are dozens of orders of magnitude more accurate than your assessment.

"nobody is going to put up the money" ++ Maybe. Humans have walked on the Moon. Unmanned vehicles have driven on Mars. Humans can walk on Mars. The only limit is money.

A pointless argument.  Do you feel that FTL travel is also therefore just a matter of money?  Because that leap is closer to what your premise is.  There's no "walking on the moon" steps in terms in terms of solving chess.

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

Yes, I'm aware of that, I mean tired.

I'm just across Italian coast 👋

Whereabouts are you?

Split, Croatia

Io sono Stanco, to not be confused, I mean my name is Stanko.

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).

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).

Split, Croatia

Io sono Stanco, to not be confused, I mean my name is Stanko.