Chess will never be solved, here's why

With perfect play, chess will probably end in a draw. Going by that standard, this may be a perfect game of chess:

Check out this link if you want to earn cryptocurrencies while playing chess 😊

[link removed, advertising not allowed -- MS]

What does advantage mean in terms of perfect play if it's not a winning advantage? The ability to force a dead position when your opponent can't? 

No, it simply isn't, as any adequately competent person can see. This is as valid as pointing to a turd and saying "here is an apple" with absolute confidence.

AlphaZero is a chess player, playing by its learned probabilities, and is unable to prove anything, regardless of the fact that it is excellent at chess (eg somewhat better than a version of Stockfish. However, it would lose more often to the latest Stockfish).

@6543

If you cannot see it, then you are no adequately competent person.

"AlphaZero is a chess player, playing by its learned probabilities, and is unable to prove anything"
++ Read the paper and you will see that it is not one AlphaZero but many evolutions of it.
There is no input except the Laws of Chess.
It only performs boolean operation i.e. logic.
Thus it proves statements by logic derived from the Laws of Chess.

i meant an advantage for its side...

@6547

The initial position is a draw. White has an advantage of 1 tempo, but that is not enough to win. To win an advantage of 1 pawn is necessary.

Advantage is meaningless for a god.

For a god, any conceivable position is either mate in X for one side or the other, or it's a forced 0.0 draw.

We do not know how much advantage in conventional terminology, that is, in position, material and tempo, is needed to beat a god at chess. That is, when would a god resign?

It may be that a god resigns if they get the black pieces.

It may be that pawn odds would be sufficient to convince a god to resign.

It may be, though it is unlikely, that a god could, and therefore, would draw against itself with queen odds. That I know of, queen odds has not been strongly solved.

In fact, I know of no proof that a god wouldn't resign the moment they roll the WHITE pieces, all of chess being a giant Zugzwang position, with every attack having a forcibly winning defense and the only winning move for white being not to play.

Nor do I know if a proof that a god wouldn't resign on one side at the starting position, but, playing less a rook, win 100% of the time.

We really don't have any proof of what the possibility space is. It could be that a god can force a draw from a wide variety of positions with lots of material advantage for one side. It could be that any advantage is a win from the starting position. It could be that a god can win from the starting position by sacrificing both material and positional advantages. We do not know anything here. And the least likely sounding outcome could turn out to be the correct one if there just happens to be an optimal line that violates every principle of chess opening or even middlegame theory.

Remember, a god has an endgame table from the starting position. There is absolutely no reason it will not do some crazy opening where 99.9999999% of lines would be horrible for it, to force a win if such a thing exists. Certainly it is more likely that chess solutions will follow chess principles, but it isn't *absolutely certain.*

@6549

"For a god, any conceivable position is either mate in X for one side or the other, or it's a forced 0.0 draw." ++ That is right. The initial position is a forced 0.0 draw.

"We do not know how much advantage in conventional terminology, that is, in position, material and tempo, is needed to beat a god at chess." ++ We do know: it is 1 pawn or 3 tempi.

"when would a god resign?" ++ Never: the god would always hold a draw from the initial position and would never make a mistake leading to a lost position.

"It may be that a god resigns if they get the black pieces." ++ No, the god draws with black.

"It may be that pawn odds would be sufficient to convince a god to resign."
++ Against another god yes, against a mortal, no: the mortal is likely to err.

"It may be, though it is unlikely, that a god could, and therefore, would draw against itself with queen odds." ++ No, impossible. an advantage of 1 pawn wins god vs. god.

"That I know of, queen odds has not been strongly solved." ++ Queen odds = loss with best play from both sides.

"In fact, I know of no proof that a god wouldn't resign the moment they roll the WHITE pieces, all of chess being a giant Zugzwang position, with every attack having a forcibly winning defense and the only winning move for white being not to play." ++ That is impossible. The first move is an advantage, albeit insufficient to win for white. If 1 e4 c5 were a win for black, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a win for white. If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a win for black, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a win for white. Strategy stealing.

"Nor do I know if a proof that a god wouldn't resign on one side at the starting position" ++ A god would never resign: the initial position is a draw.

"but, playing less a rook, win 100% of the time." ++ God versus god rook odds are a loss. Against a mortal the god would not resign, but hope for an error by the mortal.

"We really don't have any proof of what the possibility space is." ++ We know an advantage of 1 pawn is generally won.

"It could be that a god can force a draw from a wide variety of positions with lots of material advantage for one side." ++ God vs god an advantage of 1 pawn is enough to win. Many endgames with 1 or 2 pawns down are known draws, but the god with a pawn advantage would steer clear of those.

"It could be that any advantage is a win from the starting position." ++ The starting position is a draw, but loss of a pawn is a loss.

"It could be that a god can win from the starting position by sacrificing both material and positional advantages." ++ Against a mortal maybe, when the mortal errs.

"We do not know anything here." ++ We know a lot.

"an optimal line that violates every principle of chess opening or even middlegame theory."
++ No way, we have some absolute knowledge derived from the Laws of Chess.

"Remember, a god has an endgame table from the starting position." ++ It is a draw.

"There is absolutely no reason it will not do some crazy opening where 99.9999999% of lines would be horrible for it, to force a win if such a thing exists."
++ There exists no win from the starting position.

"it is more likely that chess solutions will follow chess principles, but it isn't absolutely certain" ++ It is absolutely certain. The principles logically follow from the Laws of Chess.

"The initial position is a forced draw."

Chess is solved everyone, I'm sure you have a simple and elegant proof that doesn't fit in the comments.

"It is 1 pawn or 3 tempi" Where's the proof it's not one tempo? Or 5? Or 10?

"a god would always hold a draw" If this is indeed true, which you have not shown because you have only stated that you can't force a win from the starting position rather than proven it, then it's still relevant because a god could still be given a position that wouldn't naturally be reached by it.

"the god draws with black."

[citation needed]

"against another god"

well yes, against a mortal, it would probably try to encourage the opponent to blunder.

"no, impossible, 1 pawn advantage wins"

Well then show me the proof, mathematically rigorous proof, whether constructive or not, but not simply high level games or "it's common sense" type reasoning, that it's impossible to force a draw with queen odds from the starting position. I know if no endgame table for 31 pieces on the board. Nor any proof that a material advantage, even a substantial one, will always cause a forced win. You're probably correct. Queen odds (and indeed, knight odds or perhaps even pawn odds or even a tempo) is probably a loss. But you don't know that. You just think it.

"If 1 e4 c5 were a win for black, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a win for white. If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a win for black, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a win for white. Strategy stealing."

Those are examples of strategy stealing but they rely on the opponent doing what you want. Let's say that 1 e4 c5 is a win for black? This implies an optimal player as white won't play 1. e4 unless they always lose and black won't play e5 as a response to a pawn on the third rank. If white is using a waiting move to strategy steal, so can black. 1. c3 e6 2. c4 is it's own line rather than being a mirror of 1. e4 c5. Even if that opening doesn't make much sense to us because literally it's just an anti-strategy-copying opening, we don't have a solid proof that white can throw away their tempo. We can say that this kind of chess looks stupid and unrealistic, but we also don't have any mathematically sound way to show that it is indeed not the correct way to play because there are many defenses that clearly would never see play if black needs to be concerned about strategy stealing by white. It's not even remotely likely that this is the case. But we also don't have any absolute proof to the contrary.

"A god would never resign, the initial position is a draw."

[citation needed]

"God vs god rook odds are a loss"

Has this been proven anywhere?

"We know an advantage of one pawn is generally won"

We don't know this is true for anything resembling a full board. Further still, "generally" is not "always." Who has proven that pawn odds starting position is a winning endgame?

"1 or 2 pawn endgames are sometimes drawn." How do you know a pawn odds starting position is not such an endgame?

"We have some absolute knowledge derived from the laws of chess." Yes, some, but it's limited to endgames. Middlegame and opening theory are heuristics for endgame theory. But they're not a substitute for it. If you can play the starting position as an endgame you're not necessarily going to do the same things. We really don't know anything absolute about the winnability of positions in which forced checkmate, if present, is distant, and there are still lots of pieces on the board. We only have heuristics for this.

"it is a draw."

Can I have a look at your 32-piece endgame table?

"There exists no such win from the starting position."

How do you know?

"It is absolutely certain. The principles logically follow from the laws of chess."

They do not. They are a heuristic, a highly educated guess. We know that principles can be violated in certain endgames. There's no way to know that the starting position isn't such an endgame, where conventionally important things like material balance or center control could go out the window in favor of some forced checkmate in 100 tactic or whatnot.

When you start bringing hypothetical or non-existent omnipotent beings into the conversation for a scientific argument, you have definitely lost the thread.  You have gone from the inane to the absurd.  Take a long, long look in the mirror, and ask yourself why you even care about this topic.

@6552

"Chess is solved everyone" ++ Chess is ultra-weakly solved for all practical purpose: the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw. There is massive evidence for that.

"It is 1 pawn or 3 tempi Where's the proof it's not one tempo? Or 5? Or 10?"
++ You can queen a pawn, but you cannot queen a tempo.

"a god could still be given a position that wouldn't naturally be reached by it."
++ If you give a god a lost position then the god might still win against a human if the human errs as expected, but the god loses the lost position against another god.

"Well then show me the proof, mathematically rigorous proof, whether constructive or not, but not simply high level games or it's common sense type reasoning, that it's impossible to force a draw with queen odds from the starting position."
++ Higher in this thread I have proven that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white: checkmate in 52.

"Queen odds (and indeed, knight odds or perhaps even pawn odds or even a tempo) is probably a loss."
++ Yes queen odds, rook odds, piece odds, pawn odds all lose. 1 or even 2 tempi do not lose.

"you don't know that" ++ I know. There is massive evidence for that.

"We can say that this kind of chess looks stupid and unrealistic"
++ Thus it is up to the proponents of the absurd Zugzwang idea to prove their thesis and provide a strategy that cannot be stolen.

"A god would never resign, the initial position is a draw."
++ There is massive evidence for that.

"God vs god rook odds are a loss. Has this been proven anywhere?"
++ I have given above proof that bishop odds 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? wins for black: checkmate in 52.

"We know an advantage of one pawn is generally won"
"We don't know this is true for anything resembling a full board."
++ This is even more true with a full board.
Salvation a pawn down is only possible with reduced material, especially reduced pawns.

"Further still, generally is not always.
Who has proven that pawn odds starting position is a winning endgame?"
++ Capablanca for example. There is also a known proof that 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 and then removing all pieces except pawns is a win for white.

"1 or 2 pawn endgames are sometimes drawn.
How do you know a pawn odds starting position is not such an endgame?"
++ The drawn endgames like opposite colored bishops, rook endgames with limited pawns can be avoided from the near initial position. All those safe havens have in common a reduced number of pawns.

"We have some absolute knowledge derived from the laws of chess. Yes, some, but it's limited to endgames."
++ No it is also valid for openings and middle games. We do not know everything, but we know something. We know about material, about tempi, about the center, about king safety.

"Middlegame and opening theory are heuristics for endgame theory."
++ Middle game theory and opening theory are derived from endgame theory.

"We really don't know anything absolute about the winnability of positions in which forced checkmate, if present, is distant, and there are still lots of pieces on the board."
++ We know. For example 1 g4? loses by force for white see higher in this thread.

"Can I have a look at your 32-piece endgame table?"
++ Nobody has or will soon have a 32-men table base.
However we can say absolute and relative things generally.
E.g. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? and 1 g4? lose by force for white.
1 Nh3 cannot be better than 1 Nf3. 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4.

"There exists no such win from the starting position. How do you know?"
++ There is massive evidence for that, e.g. ICCF.
It also follows from logic: you can queen a pawn, but you cannot queen a tempo.

"The principles logically follow from the laws of chess."
++ They do. All pieces are more active in the center than on the rim.

"conventionally important things like material balance or center control could go out the window in favor of some forced checkmate in 100 tactic or whatnot."
++ That is just an illusion, a weird hypothesis with no supporting ground.
All the evidence points the other way. Other solved games like Checkers, Losing Chess, Connect Four, Nine Men's Morris have only confirmed prior human knowledge. There is more literature about chess than about all other games combined. We do not know everything, but we do know something.

@6553

"When you start bringing hypothetical or non-existent omnipotent beings"
++ If it hurts your religious feelings, then please read 32-men table base instead of god.

@6556 

"I can’t read through 328 pages of replies." ++ Here is a summary:

Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition. [1]
The game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally. [1]

Optimal play is play without errors.
An error (?) is a move that changes a game from drawn to lost, or from won to drawn. [2]
A blunder or double error (??) changes a game from won to lost.

A strategy can be moves like Checkers, [3] or rules like Connect Four, [4] or a combination.
It is beneficial to incorporate knowledge into game solving programs. [1]
Chess knowledge can be acquired from the Laws of Chess only. [5]

The objective of Chess is to checkmate the opponent. [6]
A direct attack on the king can succeed only if the opponent does not play optimally.
Queening a pawn is more feasible to achieve checkmate.
We know from gambits that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. [7]
1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win: a pawn can queen, a tempo not.

Millions of human & engine games confirm that Chess is a draw.
In the last 10 ICCF world championship finals: 1469 games = 1177 draws + 292 decisive. [8]
Of the 1177 draws 1140 are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. This follows from fitting a Poisson distribution.

Starting from the 10^44 legal positions [9] none of the 56011 legal positions in a sample of 1 million can result from optimal play by both sides. This is clear as e.g. the 3 random samples displayed have 3 or more rooks and/or bishops on both sides. Gourion’s 10^37 [10] is a better estimate, but In a sample of 10,000 [11] none can result from optimal play either. That leaves 10^37 / 10000 = 10^33 positions. Multiply by 10 to include positions with 3 or 4 queens, which we know from ICCF can occur in perfect games: 10^33 * 10 = 10^34.

Weakly solving Chess calls for a strategy, i.e. one strategy only. [1]
On w white moves not w black responses each, but 1 black response only.
w * 1 = Sqrt (w * w) 
Thus Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.

Checkers has been weakly solved with 10^14 positions with 19 of the 300 openings: 200 transpositions and 81 pruned [3] and Losing Chess with 10^9 positions. [12]

Cloud engines calculate a billion nodes / s. [13] Thus 3 such engines calculate in 5 years:
10^9 nodes/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s / h * 24 h / d * 365.25 d / a * 5 a = 4.4 * 10^17 nodes
A diagram is the location of the men on the board.
A position is a diagram + side to move + castling rights + en passant flag. [6]
A node is a position + evaluation + history. [13]

Thus 3 engines exhaust in 5 years all 10^17 relevant positions and weakly solve Chess.
Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years, but needs 3 million $ to hire 3 grandmasters and rent 3 engines.

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.' [14]

References:

[1] Van den Herik, Games solved: Now and in the future, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527   

[2] Hübner, Twenty-five Annotated Games, Berlin, 1996, pp. 7–8.

[3] Schaeffer, Checkers Is Solved, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1144079   

[4] Allis http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~fernau/DSL0607/Masterthesis-Viergewinnt.pdf   

[5] McGrath et. al. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf   

[6] FIDE Laws of Chess https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018   

[7] Capablanca A Primer of Chess https://archive.org/details/aprimerofchess/page/n47/mode/2up   

[8] ICCF WC Finals https://www.iccf.com/tables   

[9] Tromp Ranking of Chess positions https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking   

[10] Gourion https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.09386.pdf   

[11] Tromp https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking/blob/noproms/sortedRnd10kFENs  

[12] Watkins https://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/LCsolved.pdf  

[13] NPS - What are the "Nodes per Second" in Chess Engine Analysis
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis   

[14] Sveshnikov https://e3e5.com/article.php?id=1467  

Chess is a forced win for white. The first move advantage is enough to force mate, although it will take longer than the 50 move rule allows. 

@6558
Nonsense. Chess is a draw as we know from ICCF. You cannot queen a tempo. The 50 moves rule plays no role as we know from ICCF.

No. The first move advantage is enough to force a win. But, as we know, some forced checkmates are many hundreds of moves long. Longer than what the 50 move rule allows. 

Guilty as charged. But I admit I cheated, I used some long division too. 

Presumably 23,401.5 since you say it's a win for White. (How many toes have you got?)