Chess will never be solved, here's why

#3886

"I apparently understand the definitions better than you do."
++ Your toilet paper calculation shows otherwise.

"Weakly solving means solving against all moves from the initial position"
++ Cutting out unreasonable moves based on knowledge is allowed per van den Herik.
I know 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white, so I do not need to calculate to checkmate.
I know 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4, so I do not need to calculate 1 a4 to a draw.

"Trying to change the definition"
++ I do not change the definition. I replicate the definition verbatim.
I just explain in layman's terms as some people complain they do not understand jargon.

"Weak Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either,
against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game."
++ It is not an algorithm, but a strategy.
Such a strategy can entail a proof tree, but also a set of rules, or a combination.
Allen has weakly solved Connect Four by brute force
and Allis has independently weakly solved it by a set of 7 rules. 

"Strong Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position,
even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides."
++ Not an algorithm, but a strategy for all legal positions.
Not only after one or more mistakes have been made, but also alternative drawing paths after one drawing strategy has been found. If 1 e4 e5 is proven a draw, then for weakly solving it does not matter if 1 e4 c5 draws as well or not, but for strongly solving that is needed too.
The essence is that weakly solving needs to visit far less positions than strongly solving.
Weakly solving Losing Chess required 900 million positions, not 10^44.

I completely agree with btickler that tygxc has drastically underestimated the number of lines and therefore positions that have to be examined for a so-called weak solution. This is because the algorithms have to widen the search considerably, in order to eliminate apparently relevant lines that turn out to contain a mistake.

The strong algorithm is irrelevant and indeed, so is the concept. This is because the so-called algorithm to produce a weak solution actually means "produce a perfect chess engine which makes no mistakes and which always plays the best moves". There's a logical absolute identicality. Therefore it's all that's required.

The definition for the ultra weak solution is problematic, since any such strategic argument would have to be proven to be completely reliable and accurate. It is, however, identical in approach to the suggestion I made three or four years ago in another thread, regarding trying to create an algorithm that identifies points of imbalance and recrystallisation in chess games.

#3895

"I completely agree with btickler that tygxc has drastically underestimated the number"
++ So you do not understand the difference between weakly and strongly solving either.
10^44 is the number of legal positions for solving strongly.
Weakly solving requires far less, about 10^17.
Losing Chess has been weakly solved using 10^9 positions, not 10^44.

"produce a perfect chess engine which makes no mistakes"
++ No, that is not weakly solving.
Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
'a strategy' ++ can be a proof tree or a set of rules or a combination of both
"the game-theoretic value" ++ a draw
"against any opposition" ++ white tries to win, black tries to draw, white fails, black succeeds

"points of imbalance and recrystallisation" ++ mumbo jumbo

Quite frankly, I think that the terminology is complete nonsense and is the probable reason why people become confused. It's a bit of a stretch for you to say that "we disagree, therefore you do not understand".

It isn't made any easier by the ridiculous terminology but reading yours and btickler's correspondence with each other, it's apparent that you're talking past each other and that problem can be traced to the terminology, which is not fit for purpose. Its purpose should be to convey meaning but that isn't happening.

<<"points of imbalance and recrystallisation" ++ mumbo jumbo>>

A concept I came up with when I was writing a chess article around 1988. I think that since I used it, I've seen GM chess writers use it so don't be in too much of a hurry. It makes complete sense to me and so it will to any who maybe don't have your intellectually-based disdain for mumbo-jumbo.

#3989

"I think that the terminology is complete nonsense" ++ I am sorry, that is the scientific terminology in the game theory field. I explained in layman's terms for your convenience.

"we disagree, therefore you do not understand" ++ People disagree because they do not understand. They should read and think before disagreeing. People are better at slinging insults and accusations than at reading and understanding.

"reading yours and btickler's correspondence with each other, it's apparent that you're talking past each other"  ++ btickler does not understand the difference between weakly and strongly solving, that is why about weakly solving he erroneously uses the number for strongly solving.

"the terminology, which is not fit for purpose. Its purpose should be to convey meaning."
++ The terminology is fit for purpose, it applies to any game, not just chess, but it is intended for scientific readers. That is why I have added an explanation in layman's terms and specific to chess for your convenience. 

It's rubbish. The fact that they can't think straight is exemplified by the completely dumb definitions. Maybe game theory attracts people of low ability. Elroch was insinuating or even claiming that they are amazingly knowledgeable and wondrously intelligent. Doesn't look that way, they're completely tangled up & haven't a clue. See how I put the definitions into plainer English. I could do a better job if it was worth the effort..

Incidentally, this is not the province of game theory, so there's no need to follow their dopey definitions. It's much more digital intelligence. It's a computing problem. We're talking about using digital intelligence to analyse chess and that's just another problem in computing and software writing; not game theory.

I wouldn't criticise if it weren't so completely obvious the definitions are screwed up. I can think my way around them but if you start with the premise that the definitions are perfect, you're bound to become confused. It's quite comical watching you and btickler talking past each other and that's partly an effect of the confused definitions. If you want, I'll write a careful criticism of them. I don't know if it would help, though, because there aren't many people who seem to be able to understand that they aren't perfect. When I first saw them I thought they were some computing or philosophy professor's joke.

<<<Solving chess means finding an optimal strategy for the game of chess, that is, one by which one of the players (White or Black) can always force a victory, or either can force a draw (see solved game). It also means more generally solving chess-like games (i.e. combinatorial games of perfect information), such as Capablanca chess and infinite chess. According to Zermelo's theorem, a determinable optimal strategy must exist for chess and chess-like games.>>>

The strategy for optimal chess consists of finding the best moves and that is all. If you can think of something better than finding the best moves, we'd love to know,

You've already written a criticism of the terms long ago.  It got the attention it deserved then, as well.  Take the hint.  Everyone gets that you don't like the nomenclature chosen.  It's not the greatest.  It is sound, however, and I am sure there is some evolutionary reason for the clumsiness of the terms for the average reader.

I just understand that all your shortcuts require determinations to reduce the 10^44 positions that are going to be roughly equivalent to just traversing the positions, say plus or minus a handful of orders of magnitude at best.

You don't seem to get this.  Your arbitrary reductions will require a massive amount of computation to apply your arbitrary criteria to each position simply to eliminate it from consideration.  Worse, at the end, your "good enough" shortcuts will produce a flawed answer that will not be accepted as a solution anyway.  Like building a house out of 2x4s and then staple-gunning cardboard for walls, then trying to sell it for a million dollars.

You can produce *something* in 5 years...but not a solution for chess.  More like a watered down attempt at a forward moving tablebase to meet the retrograde analysis in the middle.  The forward moving attempt will summarily eliminate valid positions in order to get around the fact that you are not working backwards from mate, which by force culls all of the invalid positions for you.  Not so for your ill-conceived plan.  What you propose would make engines stronger players, but the results would not even come close to being a solution for chess.

You don't have to believe me.  The proof is and will continue to be in the lack of anyone who knows how to build such systems paying the slightest attention to your plan.

I think the more I read this thread the more obvious the reason chess will never be solved is people cant even agree on what we want "solved" to mean XD.  Though I'm sure each and everyone can tell you exactly why how they feel about it is "the correct way".  The older I get the more "truth" seems to be as malleable as "morality". Fun thread to read though lots of nested philosophical ideas and such applicable to other arguments. When people cant even agree on operable definitions for the words used in the arguments you know its finna be a good time XD. 

We need Speedtalk.

It's been impossible to get the others to discuss definitions. They just reel out the rubbish they find online. I just read the Wiki article on solving chess and it looks like it was written by a 13 year old schoolboy who missed a couple of lessons. Some people have been reciting the same bad arguments here for what seems like five years and probably is five years, considering the number of threads on this there've been. And yet sometimes, reading nonsense written by others is a good way to get your own thoughts in order.

For example this. Arrogant nonsense written by a dimwit whose best years are well behind him. He ought to learn when to give it a rest but he thinks he's in charge.

Oh and he's a dozen years younger than me so this isn't ageism.

What is that supposed to mean? The lines that no one has explored down to the tablebases yet, are unkown elements. You are excluding a priori that one, any one, of those lines may falsify the assumption that the game value is a draw.

"Equalising tendency" is too ambiguous. We could only say: 
1) S is a set of positions known to be draws;  
2) if both players play optimal moves from the inital position, it is possible to reach only positions belonging to S;
3) therefore, the initial position is a draw too. 
But then the question would be: how do we know that the positions in S are draws? How can we prove statement 2?

Where do you read "computer-assisted" in my statement? The point is: how do you know that a statement holds true in any possible case, without an exhaustive proof that the statment holds true in any possible case? Because of a tendency? It would be inductive reasoning, overgeneralization. It is good for hypotheses, but not for conclusions.

But that's exactly the argument you are trying to refute: conceiving the "unconceivable".

You and tygxc are about absolute knowledge. To me the only real proof is an exhaustive one, but it might be impossible to achieve that in practice, not only in case of computer-assisted proofs. If one million mathematicians do all agree that T is a theorem, they might all be mistaken. If we all see the sun rise, we might all be hallucinated.
Seriously, true scientists are skeptical in nature: they are aware that they can be biased and that what may seem universal can be in fact just a special case; it's already happened. What makes the difference between scientists and non-scientists is the level of accuracy, universality and stability of the conclusions, they seek. This make them use mathematical models of course, they try to falsify statements, they reproduce experiments, seek agreement with other scientists, etc.
A statement like "chess is a draw because of the equalizing tendency" really cannot be considered scientific, or nearly as reliable as a computer-assisted proof by exhaustion.

The King of Projection speaks.

The fact that you can never seem to muster anything but crude insults tells the real story.  At every reply, I respond with civil discourse and observation, and you end up turning to one word insults, being unable to operate at the same level.  It's a tired refrain.

No they are not unknown in a similar sense. It's just more of exactly the same chess analysis, whereas Relativity is not more of exactly the same Galilean mechanics. I suppose you don't understand the word "paradigm" though, but if English is difficult, why bother so much?

I'm starting to wonder just what the difference is. OK my IQ is round about 170 and yours is round about 130. There isn't anyone here approaching my mental ability and yet this isn't a difficult subject. I think, though, that it's your attitude that holds you back and prevents you understanding what I'm talking about.

It seems churlish of me to continually have to point out that you aren't very bright, but I'm afraid you aren't. It would be better if you only commented with something positive.