Chess will never be solved, here's why

I wasn't talking about the internet response.

I'm from non Wigan.

I can see how I failed to be clear enough about what I meant. Firstly, I meant "in principle". It is clear it is a long way from practical, due to the massive computing resources needed.

Also, regarding the actual method, I meant Stockfish would be used to arrive at strategies in the same way as Chinook was used in the solution of checkers. i.e. not with any assumption that the moves it selected were right, but rather using it to recommend candidates and only backtracking when initial candidates were found to be inadequate. Deal with this on a case by case basis may make more sense than going back to square one. (All in principle - the resources are impractical).

Still a little vague, but it deals with your correct observation.

Small world! I too am from the complement of Wigan.

Are you going to decide which before you start? In less than 5 years? Are you actually going to tell anybody?

@5002
"I think the heuristics that van den Herik was talking about
were the kind of heuristics that Allis included in his connect4 solution
which were perfectly valid and proven techniques that could be used in particular situations."

++ Allen solved Connect Four by brute force.
Allis independently solved Connect Four with a set of 7 rules.
Both are a 'strategy' to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition.

For chess pure brute force is thinkable, but not efficient.
Pure rules is not feasible: we have rules, but not very precise ones.
Weakly solving chess needs a combination of brute force calculation and knowledge.
The latest computers do the brute force, the good assistants contribute the knowledge.

We know 1 Nh3 opposes less to the draw than 1 Nf3.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: the center.

We know 1 a4 opposes less to the draw than 1 e4 or 1 d4.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: the center, development.

We know 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and thus does not oppose to the draw.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: a piece down with no compensation is a loss. I have even presented analysis working it out to checkmate.

@5012
'Are you going to decide which before you start?'
++ It does not matter. Both are viable.
The main obstacle is 3 million $ money for 5 years of latest computers and good assistants.

Chess will never be solved. Hmm...

I remember more than one of my elementary school teachers telling us that any time there's a statement containing the words 'always' or 'never' you better read it closely, because it's probably not right.

The Tableturner

Black is up by many pieces but white will turn the tables around. Find best moves.

I used it in the correct mathematical sense, and MARattigan understood this. (There being no military context, that usage is irrelevant).

Your reasoning is wrong because you ignored the word "probably".

I think it's not just possible, but probable that if someone is telling me something will "never" happen they're exaggerating.

@Optimissed, to be frank, you are far more skillful at soothing your ego by finding a way to fool yourself you are not wrong than in being precise and improving your understanding.

When A says:

"a random proposition from S is probably false" (S being some specified set of propositions)

and B says:
"here is an example of a proposition from S that is true, so A is wrong"

the bottom line is that B's reasoning is wrong. No shades of grey.

That's a lot of words. 

@5027
... and none about solving chess...

Speak for yourself.

@5031

Back on topic: Will chess be solved? What does solved mean? [1]

The game-theoretic value is the outcome when all participants play optimally.

Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined. There is massive evidence that for Chess it is a draw.

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

Strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined
for all legal positions. For Chess: a 32-men table base with 10^44 legal positions [2], too much.

Will Chess be weakly solved? This means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the draw for black against all opposition by white.
A strategy can be a set of moves, a set of rules, or a combination. [1]

All participants play optimally, this means that white must oppose to the draw.
1 Nh3 opposes less than 1 Nf3. 1 a4 opposes less than 1 e4 or 1 d4. [3], [4]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1 does not oppose: 3...Nb8 draws by repetition.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nd4?, 3 Nxe5?, 3 Ng5?, 3 Nh4? are no optimal play.
Good assistants, i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters contribute such knowledge and more.

The use of such knowledge is beneficial and allowed in weakly solving a game. [1]
That leaves 10^17 (100 million billion) relevant positions.

The latest cloud engines calculate a billion positions per second. [5]
A year contains 365.25 * 24 * 3600 = 31557600 seconds.
Thus 3 cloud engines (or 3000 desktops) can weakly solve Chess in 5 years.

GM Sveshnikov was right:
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess."

Give me means money: 3 million $ for 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters and 3 cloud engines for 5 years.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527
[2] https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking 
[3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 
[4] https://www.sources.com/SSR/Docs/Capablanca-ChessFundamentals.pdf 
[5] https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis 

Your longstanding practice is to generate bad feeling by personal attacks rather than detached attempts to deal with facts. Even when you disagree with someone's statements rather than abusing them, you usually do so in an unconstructive way.

i eat chess pieces