Chess will never be solved, here's why

     I have to admit that tygxc is correct in his basic idea, much as I disagree with him. But my take on his theory probably doesn't correspond with his own view.

    I have no doubt that his proposal to put five years of supercomputer time and the efforts of a team of GMs into the study of the most popular opening moves, using the accumulated experience of years of high-level correspondence games as a starting point, would add a lot to our knowledge of which lines in which openings offer white the best prospects and which strategies by black are most likely to successfully thwart those attempts. It is likely that some selected lines may be explored all the way to known ending tablebases.

     This will b no means answer the question of whether there is ANY line in which chess is an irrefutable win for either side.

I find the discussion interesting, whatever that says about me. And that is a simple fact. It makes no difference whether it's interesting to anyone else....

It's like watching a tennis match. The ball gets hit back and forth until someone misses. Some people find that interesting and some don't. No one gets to say, "tennis is not interesting". To some it is, and to some it isn't. 

If someone wants to attack or refute tygxc's logic or his conclusion, I'm interested. If someone wants to attack his motives, his character, or his general state of mind, my enjoyment level diminishes. Again, that's just a fact, as it's simply about what's going on in my head.  And I believe that everyone's logic and conclusions should stand on their own. If they are foolish or invalid, then the better arguments will prevail. If there are people like me observing...who can't follow all the logic, then it seems unlikely that we will be swayed by attacks on motives and such. I certainly won't. 

That said, my dominant priority is my belief in freedom of speech. So whether I like insults or not, I would fight hard to protect the freedom to speak them. 

     His correct idea (in my view) is that taking only the opening moves his committee of GMs think are best, accepting the ICCF games he chooses as "perfectly played", discarding all variations the committee of GMs don't like, and spending the amount of computer resources he proposes it is possible to link the chosen opening lines to the proven ending tablebases.

     His incorrect idea (for me) is that this is a definitive solution of the game.

I'm not comfortable trying to judge or assess his motives. I have no evidence to base any judgement on, nor is it a concern to me. When I read tygxc's comments, I see no evidence that he is not operating in good faith. I realize that you, Elroch, and MARattigan all do, and I fully respect your opinions and your right to express them, even if I'm not comfortable with those expressions. 

I don't think my lack of conformity here should be a concern to anyone. If it weren't for tygxc, this discussion would have probably been over long ago, and many of the questions I have pondered would have never entered my mind....so right or wrong, I'm grateful he's participating. 

Very compelling arguments, a bit of a read but seems worth reading

@6456

"I realize that you, Elroch, and MARattigan all do"
++ Some do not want Chess being solved and thus sabotage the thread,
e.g. by posting pictures of wives and discussing novels instead of the topic.

"I fully respect your opinions and your right to express them, even if I'm not comfortable with those expressions." ++ Some see discussion as a gunfight of insults.
Those insulting do so for lack of good arguments.

@6454

"discarding all variations the committee of GMs don't like"
++ No, I mean: discarding all variations that are clearly worse e.g. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? and occasionally adjudicating positions that are clear draws e.g. many opposite colored bishop endings. It is not a matter of liking or disliking, but of being 100% sure.

"His incorrect idea (for me) is that this is a definitive solution of the game."
++ Why incorrect? Then a strategy is determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition. That satisfies the definition of weakly solved.

@6451

"some selected lines may be explored all the way to known ending tablebases."
++ Not some, but all calculated until the tablebase, or a prior 3-fold repetition,
or a clear draw e.g. some opposite colored bishop endgame.

"This will by no means answer the question of whether there is ANY line in which chess is an irrefutable win for either side."
++ Yes it will. If the good lines cannot win, then the bad lines cannot win either.

@6452
"whether I like insults or not, I would fight hard to protect the freedom to speak them."

++ "Please be relevant and be kind." is imperative.
Slinging insults, posting off-topic pictures and novel reviews is against the terms of service.

@6461

""Please be relevant and be kind." is imperative."

++ Being relevant and kind is desirable. Being free is imperative. 

Freedom of speech is non-negotiable with me....I appreciate the appeal to kindness and relevance, both of which I value. But when those things are placed ahead of freedom, too much power is placed in the hands of the authorities, and some form of tyranny is inevitable. 
I'll do my best to be kind and relevant, but I'll never compromise my freedom of speech or ask anyone else to. 

Kindness and relevance are best applied by culture rather than by force. 

Let's see if @tygxc can learn what deductive reasoning is.  He states that the proposition that 1. Nh3 can be ignored is "deductive knowledge".

This means that there is a sequence of logical deductive steps starting with a set of axioms and additional definitions and ending with the desired proposition as a conclusion.

Let's sketch out those steps.  Of course we start from the axioms that define the game of chess as a combinatorial structure, together with the definitions we need.

The required conclusion is:

PROP 1:  the value to white of the position after 1. Nh3  <= the value to white of the position after 1. Nf3

I hope we all understand what "the value to white of a position" means. This has a definition that is included in the set of axioms and definitions we start with.

I am personally unable to fill in the gap between the axioms defining chess and this definition and the conclusion that @tygxc claims is "deduced" (doing this would be of very similar difficulty to GENUINELY solving chess), but I merely have a couple of relevant degrees and many years of relevant experience and further knowledge to draw on, so I will have to hand over to him to sketch the way to fill the gap with DEDUCTIVE steps.

Over to you, @tygxc. Sketch the deductive proof of PROP 1 above.

Not sure what you mean or whether you are being serious, but it's simply a proposition that requires proving. A very familiar situation to those who have experience of mathematics, computer science, game theory and all other rigorous disciplines.

It is essential that @tygxc responds to post #6465 to support his previous claim.

You see, to tygxc "deduction" means à la Sherlock Holmes (to say the best); it is not a strict process like in mathematics or in formal logic. He pretends, imo, to not understand that such type of reasoning is inadequate for solving games.

     What you define as "clearly worse" is, in many cases, what I define as "what the committee of GMs don't like", as their opinion is what you propose using to determine better and worse.

     Eliminating so many possibilities is what makes me unsatisfied with any solution reach through this method.

@6474

"What you define as "clearly worse" is, in many cases, what I define as "what the committee of GMs don't like", as their opinion is what you propose using to determine better and worse."

++ Let us look at a few examples, where humans save engines irrelevant calculations.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is clearly worse than 2 Nf3. It even loses to checkmate in 82.
It loses a whole bishop and all the rest is the same i.e. there is no compensation of any kind.
So the move 2 Ba6? can be safely discarded.

https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164313 This was agreed a draw because it is a fortress.
Engines can go on for many moves until a 3-fold repetition.

https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 This was agreed a draw because the opposite colored bishops make it impossible for either side to win.
Engines can go on for many moves until a 3-fold repetition.

@6465

"a sequence of logical deductive steps starting with a set of axioms and additional definitions and ending with the desired proposition as a conclusion." ++ Yes

The set of axioms are the Laws of Chess. https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 

"PROP 1:  the value to white of the position after 1. Nh3  
<= the value to white of the position after 1. Nf3"

++ This is what this paper did https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09259
It was fed with no human input but the Laws of Chess i.e. axioms,
and it only performed boolean operations i.e. logic. It arrived at:
d4 > e4 > Nf3 > c4 > e3 > g3 > Nc3 > c3 > b3 > a3 >
h3 > d3 > a4 > f4 > b4 > Nh3 > h4 > Na3 > f3 > g4.

In human terms it requires a set of intermediate theorems deduced from the Laws of Chess.
One such intermediate theorems is that control over the center increases the value.
The center functions like high ground in the military: if you hold it the opponent fights uphill.
From the Laws of Chess follows that
Queens, Bishops, Knights, Pawns, and Kings control more squares from the center.
Thus control over the center increase the value.
That is the same in other games:
in Checkers the center is more important, in Losing Chess only 1 e3 wins,
in Connect Four only 1 d1 wins, in Nine Men's Morris: the best starting moves are b4, d2, d6, f4.
1 Nf3 controls 2 central squares and 1 Nh3 zero.
A knight on the rim is dim.
2 > 0, thus 1 Nf3 has a value >= 1 Nh3

Another such intermediate theorem is that greater mobility increases the value.
That is also true in other games like Nine Men's Morris. If you have played b4, d2 and your opponent f4, d6, then it is better to play d7, d5, e4, or g4 that limit your opponent's mobility than a4, c4, d1, or d3 that limit your own mobility.
In the initial position white has 20 legal moves.
After 1 Nf3 white has 23 legal moves.
After 1 Nh3 white has 21 legal moves.
23 > 21, thus 1 Nf3 has a value >= 1 Nh3

There is a hierarchy in the intermediate theorems:
King safety > material > center > mobility
A lone knight can defeat a whole army with a smothered checkmate.
King safety also explains why
Nf3 > Nc3
g3 > b3
c4 > f4
b4 > g4
c3 > f3

"I merely have a couple of relevant degrees and many years of relevant experience and further knowledge to draw on" ++ Me too

So there we have it.

@tygxc doesn't know what "deductive logic" means and doesn't know what "relevant degree" means either.

Perhaps I was wrong to think he would be one of those who understood what the value of a position is. For clarity: V(given position) is defined in three simple stages:

Let W be a white strategy and B be a black strategy (always assumed to be deterministic)

V(W, B) is defined as the (deterministic) result when these strategies are played against each other.

V(W) is defined as minimum over all black strategies B of V(W, B),

V(given position) is defined as maximum over all white strategies W of V(W)