Chess will never be solved, here's why

^^ Very grown up.

@6599

"Post your 10/10 wins against SF15. You should have no difficulty if there's no uncertainty."
++ This shows a complete lack of understanding. A position being analytically drawn, won, or lost has nothing to do with that position being empirically drawn, won, or lost in a contest between two human or engine players.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is analytically lost for white. It is a checkmate in 53. That does not mean a human cannot draw or even lose it as black against an engine, just like a human may even lose a game with queen odds against a grandmaster.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses. That is 100% certain and not 99.99% certain. Probalility is inappropriate for deterministic events. You can ask about the probability that player A wins position X against player B. That is empirical, not analytical. Probability is always linked to an experiment, i.e. empirical. The experiment can be coin tosses, or detecting radioactive decays, or playing chess games.

A player may know that KBN vs. K is a forced checkmate in less than 50 moves. That is 100% certain. He may however fail to do so in a game against an engine or human. His inability to checkmate does not make it less than 100% certain that the position is a forced checkmate in less than 50 moves.

@6630
is five years away from being weakly solved.

There is currently no way of judging the absolute competence of players, only competence relative to other players. Except (partially) when players play positions with material covered by tablebases or admit a practicable analysis. The exceptional case would suggest there are no competent players and never have been. 

Actually he said 53, but I think he's also said 82.

I agree that computers are pretty irrelevant apart from speeding things up a bit (a bit in this context). If chess ever gets a practical solution (it's been solved according to @tygxc's definition probably since it was first thought of) I think human intelligence will play a far larger rôle than Superficial Intelligence.

The difference between you and @Elroch and I is not about computers. It's about what would constitute a solution and the nature of any human thought that would arrive at one (though computers could be necessary to effect the arrival). In simple terms we don't count guessing as a solution.

I'm honestly impressed that this forum is still basically on topic.

👋

That's no fun. If guessing isn't a solution then the title of this topic is right. Chess will never be solved. Why? Because guessing isn't a solution. 

But I still say for all practical purposes it's already been solved. 

@6581

"computers are pretty irrelevant" ++ Without computers it is not possible.
Only with 3 powerful computers during 5 years non stop is it feasible to weakly solve chess.
10^17 relevant positions is too huge a number for unaided humans.

"human intelligence will play a far larger rôle"
++ Yes, incorporation of chess knowledge is beneficial.
That is also why Sveshnikov asked first for good assistants and second for modern computers.

"what would constitute a solution and the nature of any human thought"
++ We have examples: Checkers, Losing Chess, Connect Four, Nine Men's Morris...

"we don't count guessing as a solution" ++ No, nobody does.

@6584

"for all practical purposes it's already been solved"
++ For all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved: the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
We also have > 1000 perfect games with optimal play from both sides: ICCF WC Finals draws.
However chess is not yet weakly solved.
We know chess is a draw, but we do not yet know exactly how.
How to draw against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3?

Here is again the proof that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses by force for white.

If white plays differently, then white loses quicker.
A win is easier to prove than a draw.
Even without such constructive proof it is and was known that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses: a full piece down with no compensation of any kind.
I gave above proof that 1 g4? loses by force for white, which is more surprising a result.

We don't know chess is a draw. For example, I know it's a forced win for white. So what "we know" is really just a guess. And as Mar said, guessing isn't a solution. 

When chess was invented it was intended to be a contest between two people. The better player wins, regardless of color choice. So what I mean when I say for all practical purposes it's been solved is that chess is no longer just a contest between two people. Now, computers will beat humans every time. So, the game of chess as it was intended has been solved. Computers always win. 

But as far as which color wins, or doesn't win, with computers, we don't actually know. We guess. So as long as we are guessing, white wins by force. 

There's no proof using engine analysis.  Engines are imperfect, as proven by the fact that they still get measurably better with every release.  This has only been pointed out to you about a hundred times in this and other threads.  That isn't even hyperbole.

Your whole premise to solving chess is to redefine the solution into your dead hero's statement.  Backwards, as ever.

The difference is between you and @Elroch and me, but point acknowledged.

The cases aren't the same. The teacher would be able to work out the sum, but you can't work out the position - otherwise youl'd have no problem with my challenge to demonstrate it against SF.

Is that pathetic or is that pathetic?

It's possible - in fact likely - that the advantage of the first move might be enough to win by force. A hypothetical super power chess computer running at insane speeds might claim, prior to making its first move: "Mate in 2,212,598,303,505,004,977"