Chess will never be solved, here's why

@6411

"So, an appeal to authority" ++ You yourself asked for "an authoritative basis for your definition"

If you could read, you'ld realise he asked for an authoritative basis for your definition, not his.

"It is important when you want to communicate with people to use terminology that is not at odds with normal usage." ++ That is why I use the common terms 'error' and 'blunder' and not your 'half point error' and 'full point error' that nobody uses, but means the same.

The terms error and blunder are indeed common, but when you use them you mean something different from common usage. That's the point of the posts here, here, here and here. 

Where has anyone advocated the use of the terms "'half point error" or "'full point error"? Nobody uses those terms except when commenting on your own text, where you consistently use "error" to mean "blunder"?

That is the consequence of your Humpty Dumpty ("when I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean” ) approach to communication. Exactly what we are complaining about.

"No-one accepts your suggestion." ++ It is not mine, it is GM Dr. Hübner's and he at least accepts it. It is the only logical, consistent and objective meaning of error and blunder.

We've made it plain we don't believe you. That's why we asked you to show us where GM Dr. Hübner says what you attribute to him.

The posts here, here, here and here asked you for such evidence and you've been unable to provide any. I think you're just making it up again.

The second sentence is fatuous.

...

Thanks. Was it good?

It remains a good example of classic "young adult space fiction" (Worth remembering that when it was published in 1956, even low Earth orbit remained science fiction!). The central fantasy element of telepathy that falsifies relativistic physics is developed well enough to suspend disbelief. It was enjoyable to reread a book that I read over 40 years ago and only partially remembered.

Doesn't matter what Hubner thinks. It's only evidence for an argument where there's a well-founded consensus. There will never be a consensus here ... at best it's Hubner's opinion.

I agree that it doesn't matter what Hübner thinks. The same point was made by @Elroch. 

Probably could be consensus if @tygxc would stop making things up.

 The arguments against {Queens off = endgame} are very strong. It's an opinion which various people hold and it's a very poor argument, for quite a few reasons. Just wrong.

Isn't it just a matter of definition? Does seem to mean KQvK is opening or middlegame though, which is a strange viewpoint..

How is it relevant to the thread?

Imagine a chess position of X paradigms. 

Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good. 

Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?"

You are wrong, Chess computers have not solved such positions. A better computer can absolutely play that positon better than the older versions could? what are you even talking about?? You do know that we still have computer tournaments right?? ???

"No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could"

you're telling me a FIDE master can draw against stockfish 15 in the Ruy Lopez?? You do realize some of the best players in the world can't draw against stockfish even if it is forced to do the bongcloud right?? There is no way an FM is drawing in the Ruy Lopez against such a monster. You seem to be living in some alternate reality bro. The game is far from solved in a competitive sense, new ideas are constantly being discovered lol this is so dumb. You do know opening theory is still evolving right??

"the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc. 

nothing in the world can change that" Yes there are exact solutions, and no one on earth has ever even come close to grasping them knows neither computer, nor human. 

"So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca"

This is perhaps one of the dumbest things ever said by anybody about chess, even uniformed people who wouldn't know capablanca would probably at least have enough common sense to know that players who were born more than 100 years ago could not play as good as the best players today can. This is just nonsense, you lack even rudimentary knowledge of chess history and lack even basic common sense if you believe that chess theory hasn't changed since capablanca  . . .  

@6411

"So, an appeal to authority" ++ You yourself asked for "an authoritative basis for your definition"

"It is important when you want to communicate with people to use terminology that is not at odds with normal usage." ++ That is why I use the common terms 'error' and 'blunder' and not your 'half point error' and 'full point error' that nobody uses, but means the same.

"No-one accepts your suggestion." ++ It is not mine, it is GM Dr. Hübner's and he at least accepts it. It is the only logical, consistent and objective meaning of error and blunder.

"you do not understand the established meaning of solving a game.  ++ I do, you do not.

I quote from peer-reviewed literature:

• Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based
  methods in game-solving programs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527
  I understand what that means, but you clearly don't. "Knowledge-based methods" are precise and deductive. They are not crap like "Nh3 is obviously inferior to Nf3, so we can ignore it completely",
• The checkers proof consisted of solving 19 three-move openings, leading to a determination
  of the starting position’s value: a draw. Although there are roughly 300 three-move openings, more
  than 100 are duplicates (move transpositions). The rest can be proven to be irrelevant by an
  alpha-beta search.
  Which is a deductive method, not taking any sloppy short-cuts. The pruning is not on the basis of evaluations, it is on the basis of transpositions to known positions dealt with in other openings.
  https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/checkers_is_solved.pdf
• A Shannon C-type strategy program, VICTOR, is written for Connect-Four,
  based on nine strategic rules http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~fernau/DSL0607/Masterthesis-Viergewinnt.pdf 
  And the proof of solution is deductive, with nothing ignored in the way you repeatedly do.

"you don't respect what you are told."
++ Whenever I am told something that is wrong. Do you respect what I tell you?

Your proclamations are frequently definitively wrong. For example, asserting you can ignore 1. Nh3 when creating a strategy for black for chess. How much respect do crucial errors merit? As much as blunders in chess games, I suppose.

• In weakly solving Chess it is not forbidden to think and use knowledge
  You are oblivious to the difference between deductive knowledge and inductive heuristics. The former is certain and may be used as part of the reasoning in a proof. The latter cannot - but it still has a valid role in the selection of strategies. It would be so good if you were capable of understanding this.
  You are confused about the stark difference between the complete freedom to choose moves in a strategy (all that matters is that they work) and the complete lack of freedom to constrain the legal responses of the opponent (every single one of them needs to be dealt with).
• When the 4 most optimal white moves cannot win, then the 16 least optimal cannot win either.
• 1 g4?, 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nd4?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng5?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nh4?  etc. lose for white and do not even try to win and thus are irrelevant in weakly solving Chess.
• 1 a4 cannot be more optimal that 1 d4 or 1 e4 and thus is irrelevant in weakly solving Chess
• 1 Nh3 cannot be more optimal than 1 Nf3 and thus is irrelevant in weakly solving Chess

It is most helpful of you to provide so many excellent examples of the things I have pointed out earlier. In a fantasy world where you were capable of improving your understanding, you would relate each of them to my points above.

@6446

"Nh3 is obviously inferior to Nf3, so we can ignore it completely"
++ That is not crap, that is knowledge.

It is inductive belief, a good bet based on imprecise, woefully incomplete evidence. It is fine for practical, imprecise chess play, and has absolutely no place in a rigorous strategy for black.

I accept 100% that you think it is knowledge, but everyone can see that is because you do not understand the difference between deduced facts and induced beliefs.

"it is on the basis of transpositions to known positions dealt with in other openings."
++ No, 300 openings, 100 are duplicates (move transpositions), 19 are solved, 181 irrelevant.

False. Alpha-beta pruning is used to deal with the inferior openings. It seems you do not understand what alpha-beta pruning is. Let me quote:

"Alpha–beta pruning is a search algorithm that seeks to decrease the number of nodes that are evaluated by the minimax algorithm in its search tree. It stops evaluating a move when at least one possibility has been found that proves the move to be no better than a previously examined move. Such moves need not be evaluated further. When applied to a standard minimax tree, it returns the same move as minimax would, but prunes away branches that cannot possibly influence the final decision."

Presumably, the way this worked was that first all the decent openings were dealt with, then for the weaker ones it was demonstrated that a player could force a position that had already been dealt with and whose value was known for sure (this being a huge number by this stage).

"And the proof of solution is deductive" ++ Just like the solution of Connect Four,
the weak solution of chess can benefit from incorporating knowledge.

It can. But only in a valid way.

"asserting you can ignore 1. Nh3 when creating a strategy for black for chess."
++ It is unthinkable that 1 Nf3 draws and 1 Nh3 wins.

It is not at all difficult to think of it as a possibility. Regardless, if chess is a draw, solving chess requires a proof that black can draw against 1. Nh3, not a glib assumption.

To see this is so, pretend that the starting position in chess is the one after 1. Nh3. Anyone who claims this game can be proven to be drawn by saying "this game is obviously drawn" is very foolish.

"difference between deductive knowledge and inductive heuristics"
++ Some heuristics are deductive, not inductive. For example the importance of the center is deductive. Nf3 is more active than Nh3 and controls 2 vs. 0 central squares.

Thank you for confirming that you do not understand the difference.

"complete lack of freedom to constrain the legal responses of the opponent (every single one of them needs to be dealt with)." ++ I disagree. It is pointless to work out all possible variations of 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? to checkmate in 82.

It is pointless to solve chess. So no need to start.

"things I have pointed out earlier" ++ But wrongly so. Solving a game does not forbid to think.

That does not make sense.