Chess will never be solved, here's why

I bet it doesn't stop then.

You are right to be confident. You are wrong to be certain.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white

A more extreme example of the same.

Elroch, this is where you fall flat. Sticking to this principle of "we cannot know anything" is as wrong in principle as it's wrong in practice. White giving away a bishop on the second move of a game loses by force and we can know that.

One could equally criticise you for your own certainty, after all. You condemn yourself, except in the eyes of a nihilist. Your own insistence that tygxc is wrong fails to your own principles. It's too much a mixed message.

At best, all you're doing is pushing a philosophical standpoint of extreme relativism, which I certainly would not countenance, because it lacks intrinsic balance. In essence it's dictatorial, like someone telling another person that agnosticism is the only correct, philosophical standpoint. Doing that would show someone in a poor light, when it was evident that they didn't apply their own dictum to themselves.

You would be better trying to show tygxc that he's incorrect on the subject of solving chess in five years using human guidance for engine analysis by using practical arguments, like I did, because an argument based on the idea of "we cannot know anything" may be considered to fail. That's because it also appeals to the idea of definite knowledge ..... in this case, to the idea that we cannot know anything. Such an idea is therefore false. "We cannot know anything" is no less an assumption than the assumption it aims to refute, even though it may seem to be an assumption that demonstrates philosophical expertise. However, It's too easy to attack and refute.

The argument you made previously is correct and sufficient. It was that human analysis, considering thousands of positions quickly, would be bound to cause errors. That's completely sound, sufficient and irrefutable. We cannot know that they would not make errors, so therefore that proposed method is incorrect. That is beyond doubt.

To return to original post, what does "Chess being solved" even mean?

Is it finding the best move for every possible position?

@Ralphmcm, there are a few distinct types of solution. Here it has been generally acknowledged while we would be interested find an "ultra-weak solution" (proving what the result of chess with perfect play is, but failing to exhibit strategies to achieve it) but that it is extremely unlikely that a useful one exists, and have focussed almost entirely on the notion of a "weak solution". This consists of a complete, practical strategy for each player that guarantees getting the theoretical result. 

Part of this (and in practice achieved simultaneously, as for checkers) is to prove what the result of chess is with best play by both sides.

ok?

You really ought to study my posts more. Thee only viable strategy lies in "playing the best moves". These definitions have been written by idiots. They have no significance for the solution of chess.

While I have read your posts, this article and its ilk is what merits study. Your point does not have substance.

Do you really have the narcissistic arrogance to say the authors are "idiots"? They understand that what the work discussed has achieved is a weak solution. I am also 100% sure they understand ultraweak solutions of other games and why the distinction matters. They also very clearly understand why a weak solution is very different to a complete tablebase for checkers (which would provide a strong solution).

There's only one narcissist here Elroch. It's you. I've known it for approximately 12 years.

You should curb your pomposity if you want to argue with me. You're outclassed and also you make it pretty obvious. You talk down to tygxc. Now, I know we both disagree with him and we agree it;s wrong of him to make what we consider to be unsupported claims. Yet you're just as bad as he is in your way. You're trying to argue with me in my subject area. You really think you're the great shakes, don't you. But you're a university teacher with a masters in statistics, who pompously talks down to people and imagines he's an expert in anything and everything.

You've been doing it here for years. You're a good statistician, I'm sure, but regarding other areas of knowledge, I really wonder why you think you can talk down to people the way you do when you aren't actually amazingly bright.

OK goodnight.

Oh and another thing. I know you have no compunction regarding being unpleasant to others, when they fail to meet your standards of understanding. I've seen you being pretty nasty to people quite a bit. So now you launch a personal attack on me, for disagreeing with you. Is there some reason I shouldn't report you for personal abuse?

You think you're in the big league don't you. But you're not in any big league, unless you want to talk to me and you're willing to stay polite, if you do so. I can make a strong case that chess analysis has nothing to do with game theory and that therefore game theory definitions have nothing to do with chess. You ought to have paid more attention to that post I wrote the other day. Why don't you try to refute it? Might be a good test of your ability.

That's why I made the comments I did. You're just as incapable as others you're criticising of getting you're head round ideas that are out of your very substantial comfort zone.

It's always the other guy in Oblivimissed-world .

Not your argument, btickler and also, when either you or Elroch are concerned, that's very true. Statistically, that is.

Thought you said you didn't want me to troll you and yet here you are, trolling. No doubt you'll say I started it. Obviously, what Elroch said to me wasn't starting it, was it.

everybody sing along.

also

Haha!

Finding the best moves in reasonable positions, since there's no real point in looking at random positions or those where one player has played so badly that they're obviously losing. For instance, perhaps by having played 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6, which Elroch seems to think may not be losing for white. Seems that tygxc and he make a wonderful pair. So similar in so many ways.

I'm not arguing any points in discussion.   Just making a rather apparent observation.  Toughen up, it hardly rises to the low water mark of your usual fare.

@4107

"The large majority of the positions in those games have more than 8 pieces on the board."
++ The whole point is to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base,
or a forced 3-fold repetition, or a sure draw like some opposite colored bishop ending.

"the claim that every single opening played is known to be perfect"
++ Each opening is known to be perfect after chess is weakly solved:
after the calculation shows that black can draw against all reasonable white moves.

"Doing this task for chess cannot be done at present."
++ 10^17 positions is 1000 x more than 10^14, so chess is 1000 x more complicated, but now can be done in 5 years. It is not because chess is more complicated that it cannot be done.
Chess is even 100 million times more complicated than Losing Chess, despite the same 64 squares and the same 32 men.

"These are decisive games played against the engines you are relying on"
++ No, I do not rely on any decisive games, I rely on drawn games only.

'for 100% reliable evaluations" ++ The evaluation comes from the table base or from a prior 3-fold repetition or a prior human adjudication of e.g. an opposite colored bishop ending.

"the jump from good bet to certainty."
++ That is no bet, it is certainty. Once 1 e4 and 1 d4 are proven draws,
then it is absolutely 100% certain, no doubt at all, that 1 a4 cannot win for white either.
Likewise we do not know, if 1 Nf3 is any better or worse than 1 e4 or 1 d4, but we know for sure that once 1 Nf3 is proven to draw, that then 1 Nh3 cannot win for white either.

"1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white A more extreme example of the same."
++ It is absolutely 100% certain, no doubt at all that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white.
I even proved it is a forced checkmate in 82 @3936.

"You estimated it from a sample."
++ Yes, I estimated the 1 error in 10^20 positions from a sample.
There is some margin for error. Maybe it is not 1 in 10^20 but 1 in 10^19 or 1 in 10^22,
but that does not change anything fundamental. It is still less than 1 error in 10^17 positions.

"If you let the 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine run for 17 s, or a desktop for 4.7 hours, then the absolutely correct move will be among the top 4 engine moves in all but 1 case in 10^20.
I am not 100% sure if this is a wrong estimate or an uncertain estimate"
++ Yes, this is an estimate: it may well be 1 case in 10^19 or 10^22.
You can see for yourself. Set up any KRPP vs. KRP, let your desktop run for 4.7 hours, verify that the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves as predicted.

No, I'm going the other way and becoming less tolerant of bad manners by others. If you want me to behave nicely after a narcissist calls me a narcissist because he can't actually think of a refutation of my post (because there isn't one) well I jolly well shan't, so there!I think that a lot of people here think that game theory consists of the strategy of games. It doesn't.