Chess will never be solved, here's why

Now now, you're teasing him. It makes no difference.

@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).

A woman will never ride on the back of a speckled hen, to Alpha Centauri. Your teacher wasn't right. It was just a moral lesson for you.

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

I understood it too in the sense you obviously intended. Then, after a minute, I realised that, of course, you were incorrect, since Wigan isn't a mathematical entity. It's a social one and therefore has more in common with the military context than you realise.

No it wasn't wrong. "Possibly" would be correct: but this isn't a logical treatise.

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.

All I'm doing is reacting. I have faith in myself and rarely believe that I have to put on a special show. I know that I'm far more intellectually capable than you are and I don't need not to say that to keep up some kind of facade of modesty. After all, you come across as being completely conceited.

Iff you were more intellectually capable, you would work out that there are times we discuss things as formal, logical syllogisms and there are times when we use metaphor. Using metaphor is the normal, human modus operandi. I usually discuss things as a normal person. You, however, propelled by your ego which makes you wish continually to seem to be superior, are adept at pretending that people must always discuss in the terms you prefer and sanction.

You need to grow up and stop trying to win petty points as dictated by YOUR ego. As I have stated previously, you are not as intelligent as you wish other people to imagine. You make mistakes continually, in fact. You are really not so bright and it is only the years of learning to present your thoughts in a pseudo-formal way that makes it seem, to many others, that you can think straight.

The only way you could change my mind would be to try to argue honestly, for once. To be sincere and not continually affecting an ability which you just don't possess, to the same extent as those you may be arguing with. I will repeat myself. The only way you or any person can possess that ability is through honesty and sincerity and at the moment, you don't show either.

That's a lot of words. 

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

Yes sir.

Incorrect, sir. Elroch was misleading us regarding solving chess. Whether deliberately or from ignorance, I know not, but he seems to want to use personal anecdore continually to discredit my superior intellect. If he's allowed to get away with it then this thread suffers as an effect.

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