Chess will never be solved, here's why

@4033

"We have already established that the human intervention is necessary to determine which positions are "meaningful" and need guidance"
++ No, we have not. The humans launch the calculations from meaningful starting positions.
The humans occasionally end calculations in clearly drawn or won positions.

"there is no algorithm that is 100% reliable where the positional assessment is difficult"
++ Positional assessment is calculation. A positional advantage is an advantage that transforms into a material advantage or ultimately checkmate in a certain number of moves.
The humans make no positional assessments. The humans launch the calculations.
The humans end calculations in case of a clear draw or win.

"You continue to evade the issue."
++ I do not evade any issue. You do not understand and you twist my words.
Try to read and understand. It is not that hard.

It's now becoming clear that tygxc is not endeavouring to arrive at an honest assessment but merely to sell a story. The key is to ignore the side-issues and to challenge, if that's what you want to do, on the issues where he is clearly either innocently wrong or attempting to deceive.

You are constantly backtracking and changing your story to suit your arguments. I'm not saying you're being deliberately dishonest but what I am completely sure about, as are many others, is that the impression your argument gives is that you are being dishonest. There is no question that you have now lost your argument, based on your previous answers, together with the fact that you made those answers in order to get out of tight corners in previous parts of the discussion but your answers are insufficient to convince anyone that you are telling the truth.

In particular, there are trillions of positions to be considered, in five years. You have admitted that the present algorithms in Stockfish are insufficient to guarantee 100% accuracy on borderline decisions re. positions. You have admitted that 100% accuracy is necessary, for a proper solution. You have accepted that a large number of human interventions would be necessary. The following are underestimates:

Trillions of positions must be assessed. Millions of positions require human input. If one GM can consider 1000 positions per day, allowing 25 hours per day and no time off for sleep or other personal requirements, that is 40 positions per hour. That isn't enough time for more than a superficial assessment, as I know you will agree. 1000 positions per GM per day for 3 GMs (stipulated by you) = 3000 per day. That's just over a million per year. Five years for 5 million positions (but we know they may not achieve 1% of that). 
You claim that is going to be 100% accurate is a disconnect with reality. 
Previously, you answered like this:

"In any case, the numbers cannot be achieved in 5 years."
++ Because you say so? I take the word of Sveshnikov over yours. The numbers confirm it.

"I believe that you give him too much credit."
++ I believe you do not pay him enough respect. He knew what he was talking about.

Yes, because I say so and many others also say so. It is clear that you do not respect the word of others you're arguing with. Given that, should they respect your word? Everything you have written is grotesquely self-serving, circular and based on your fantasy. You should be honest. Otherwise you will get no respect. At least CooloutAC was entertaining and perhaps he made more effort to he honest than you do. You've lost your argument, tygxc. Why not accept it?

Ah. How convenient. I thought when you said chess would be solved in 5 years you meant from now, or when you first made the claim. I didn't know the 5 year period starts at some random undetermined time in the future. 

My teenage nephew said he is going to be a millionaire in 2 years. Now I know what he meant. 

So out of curiosity why 5 years? If the clock doesn't start until some point in the future none of us know, why not say 1 year? Or even one month, or 5 days?

@4035

"tygxc is not endeavouring to arrive at an honest assessment" ++ Yes, I am

"merely to sell a story" ++ I am not selling anything. I am not even applying for an R&D grant.

"where he is clearly either innocently wrong" ++ Nowhere

"or attempting to deceive." ++ Nowhere. You on the other hand twist my words.

@4036

"you are constantly backtracking and changing your story" ++ No, I say the same thing.

"the impression your argument gives is that you are being dishonest"
++ You do not read, you do not understand and that gives you an erroneous impression.

"There is absolutely no question that you have now lost your argument"
++ There is absolutely no question that no valid couterargument has been presented.

"your answers are insufficient to convince anyone"
++ If you do not read or understand, I cannot help.
I patiently explain, answer questions, quote literature, give examples.

"there are trillions of positions to be considered, in five years" ++ Yes, 10^17.

"You have admitted that the present algorithms in Stockfish are insufficient"
++ I have calculated that there is < 1 error in 10^20 positions that the objectively correct move is not within the top 4 moves of Stockfish when running for 17 s on a 10^9 nodes/s engine, or for 17000 s on a 10^6 nodes/s desktop. There are no 10^20 positions, only 10^17 positions.

"You have accepted that a large number of human interventions would be necessary."
++ I estimate 3 grandmasters full time 40 h/week during 5 years.

"Trillions of positions must be assessed." ++ Yes, 10^17

"Millions of positions require human input."
++ No. The proof tree is expected to contain 1 billion positions, that is 10 million games.

"If one GM can consider 1000 positions per day"
++ Kramnik said he studied 10,000 games per month.
3 grandmasters * 10,000 games/month/grandmaster * 12 month/a * 5 a = 1.8 million games. Most of the games need no intervention, see examples @4033.
So intervention in 18% of games seems plausible.

"You claim that is going to be 100% accurate is a disconnect with reality."
++ Losing Chess and Checkers also got 100% accurate proofs.

"Yes, because I say so and many others also say so." ++ So if 10 players of 1700 strength say one grandmaster does not know chess analysis, then the majority is right?

"It is clear that you do not respect the word of others you're arguing with."
++ I have so far not seen one valid counterargument.

"should they respect your word?"
++ They should, but they do not, I get insults, often a sign of lacking argument.
Anyway nobody should accept my word, I am no Sveshnikov, I do not even have a master title. People should try to read and understand before dismissing without any argument.

"Everything you have written is grotesquely self-serving" ++ I do not benefit from it.

"circular" ++ no

"based on your fantasy" ++ Based on facts & figures.

"You should be honest." ++ I am. You should be too.

"Otherwise you will get no respect."
++ I get no respect from the disrespectful. I am not after respect, I am after the truth.

"You've lost your argument"
++ Chess is about winning, or losing, or drawing, an argument is about the truth.

@4037

I thought when you said chess would be solved in 5 years you meant from now.
++ Humans can walk on Mars within 10 years after allocation of resources. 

"So out of curiosity why 5 years?"
++ That is what GM Sveshnikov said and that is what the facts & figures confirm.

tygxc, you're accusing me of twisting your words. I would never do that. I have nothing to gain from it. I, like some but not all others, am interested in establishing the truth.

You aren't "after the truth". That is logically impossible, since you claim to already know the truth. You are not willing to take good arguments into consideration. You merely repeat your incorrect ones, endlessly. It doesn't work. It never did but it wasn't made clear enough. You've lost your argument.

How is your Alzheimer's Disease? That's more important. I hope you are not feeling too bad.

But none of that makes any sense. Why 5 years if the starting point is some unknown future time? We could also say humans can walk on mars within 10 minutes. If the starting point is after the spaceship has already landed there. 

So it sounds like this Sveshnikov character is saying chess will be solved in 5 years. Starting in an unknown number of centuries from now when computers will be strong enough to do it. 

Oh good the troll is temporarily dead.

Oh and this:

++ I have calculated that there is < 1 error in 10^20 positions that the objectively correct move is not within the top 4 moves of Stockfish when running for 17 s on a 10^9 nodes/s engine, or for 17000 s on a 10^6 nodes/s desktop. >>>

is wrong. 

I know it's wrong and I don't expect you to be able to follow the inductive reasoning. It would take quite a few accurate sentences to explain why it's wrong and it isn't worth the effort. More to the point, I know you can't prove your calculations true and, of course, they are not true. This argument does not rest on my proving your calculations wrong. It rests on your proving them to be correct.

However, if you do not believe me that it's wrong, let's accept that it's right. So the number of seconds in five years, divided by your figure of 17 seconds per position is a figure somewhat less than 10 millions. So at best, using your own figures, SF can examine 10 million positions in five years.

That isn't trillions, is it? So again, you're wrong. Sorry, but you are wrong. A million engines in parallel would give less than ten trillions of positions. But the real figures are not just ten trillions, as you're well aware. Just fancy, a million engines still can't do it. And that was done giving you a very generous benefit of a very large doubt.

Chess might be solved with enough time.

Don't think so myself. There isn't enough time. Not in this galaxy.

@4033

"tygxc, you're accusing me of twisting your words" ++ Yes, you did that.

"You aren't "after the truth"." ++ Yes I am.

"You are not willing to take good arguments into consideration."
++ I have not read any good counterargument so far. Lots of insults, ridicule, ad hominem...

"You merely repeat your incorrect ones" ++ I repeat the correct ones.

"It doesn't work." ++ People do not read, do not understand, though claiming to be intelligent.

"You've lost your argument." ++ I argue for the truth, not for winning or losing unlike chess.

"How is your Alzheimer's Disease?" ++ Speak for yourself.

@4034

"Why 5 years if the starting point is some unknown future time?"
++ How long does it take to build a house? When does that period start?
The starting point is when the money is there.
The work cannot start before the assistants and computers are there to start it.

"So it sounds like this Sveshnikov character is saying chess will be solved in 5 years."
++ Read again:

'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.' - GM Sveshnikov (+)

The 'give me' expresses the necessity of the assistants and computers as a prerequisite.
The 'good assistants' imply human assistance being essential. He even names them first.
The 'lastest computers' implies that they already exist.

You do not seem to know him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Sveshnikov 
https://www.chess.com/news/view/evgeny-sveshnikov-1950-2021 

@4036

"So the number of seconds in five years, divided by your figure of 17 seconds per position is a figure somewhat less than 10 millions."
++ In 17 seconds the engine calculates 17 billion positions.
You confuse the proof tree and the search tree.
The engine considers far more positions than it retains.
For comparison: Checkers has a proof tree of 10^7 positions and a search tree of 10^14.

"++ No, we have not. The humans launch the calculations from meaningful starting positions.
The humans occasionally end calculations in clearly drawn or won positions."

Are the meaningful starting positions determined by engine evaluation? What range of evaluations are considered the relevant positions (ie. -1 to +1?) Isn't the margin of error for current engines too big to reliably confirm the relevant positions?

@4042

"Are the meaningful starting positions determined by engine evaluation?"
++ No, they are not: the human assistants determine them with the help of data bases.

"Isn't the margin of error for current engines too big to reliably confirm the relevant positions?"
++ Yes, and that is why the engine evaluation is not used for determining the meaningful starting positions. Chess is most complicated at 26 men: Table 3.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.09386.pdf

So the human assistants with data bases select the meaningful positions of 26 men.

From the initial position 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3 are most meaningful and have to be handled.
1 a4 is not meaningful, it does not try to win. That is based on human logic, but has been confirmed by independent engine calculations (no evaluation, but whole games) with no other input but the Laws of Chess: Figure 31.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 

Looking at 1 e4 the humans select a promising reply to draw, say 1...e5. (They could also select 1...c5.) Now there are several white tries to win: 2 Nf3, 2 Bc4, 2 Nc3, 2 d4 to treat.
2 Ba6 needs no consideration: we know it loses, so it does not try to win.
Some of the moves transpose, the human assistants take care not to duplicate.
E.g. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 = 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nc6 3 Nf3
or 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3 Nc6 = 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4

Looking at 2 Nf3 the humans select a promising reply to draw, say 2...Nc6. (They could also select 2...Nf6.) Now there are several white tries to win: 3 Bb5, 3 Bc4, 3 Nc3, 3 d4 to treat. 

Looking at 3 Bb5 the humans select a promising reply to draw, say 3...Nf6. (They could also select 3...a6.) Now there are several white tries to win: 4 d4, 4 O-O, 4 d3, 4 Qe2 to treat.

It goes on like that and the good asssistants arrive at positions like this one:

This has 26 men and here engine evaluations are getting accurate enough to launch the engine. Each time the top 4 white moves are investigated and the top 1 black reply is chosen after thinking 17 seconds on a cloud engine, which corresponds to 4.7 hours on a desktop.
As calculated the objectively correct move will always be among the top 4 engine moves if the cloud engine runs for 17 seconds, corresponding to 4.7 hours on a desktop, with only 1 error in 10^20 positions, but there will be only 10^17 positions.

It is even more efficient to start from an ICCF WC drawn game, as calculations show it already is 99% sure to be a perfect game with no error and as it represents 2 years of engine and grandmaster effort. Example:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164344 

This game ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw.

Look at the last white move 57 Bxa1. What 3 alternatives are there and do they draw too?

If yes, then look at 56 Bb2. Calculate what 3 alternative moves are there and do they draw too?

If yes, then look at 55 Kd3. Calculate what 3 alternative moves are there and do they draw too?

Calculate like that all the way back until a position from another data base game is reached.

Emphases mine:  

   "The stored proof tree is "only" 10⁷ positions. Saving the entire proof tree, from the start of the game so that every line ends in an endgame database position, would require many tens of terabytes, resources that were not available. Instead only the top of the proof tree, the information maintained by the manager, is stored on disk. When a user queries the proof, if the end of a line of play in the proof is reached, then the solver is used to continue the line into the database. This dramatically reduces the storage needs, at the cost of re-computing (roughly two minutes per search)"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231216842_Checkers_Is_Solved

@4044
"10^14 is a good ballpark estimate of the forward search effort."
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/checkers_is_solved.pdf

Page 1521, column 3, paragraph 3.

"However, human analysts consider this line to be a win for Black, and the
preliminary analysis agreed. Hence, the seven openings beginning with the moves 12-16 and
24-19 were proven instead. This led to the least amount of computing."
Page 1521, column 2, paragraph 2.

"“Are the results correct?” Early on in the computation, we realized that there
were many potential sources of errors, including algorithm bugs and data transmission errors.
Great care has been taken to eliminate any possibility of error by verifying all computation
results and doing consistency checks. As well, some of the computations have been independently verified (SOM text). Even if an error has crept into the calculations, it likely does not change the final result."

Page 1521, Column 1, paragraph 1