Chess will never be solved, here's why

If you understood what a troll was, you might stop trolling .

@5170

"This method of solving chess relies on using the judgement of GMs or engines"
++ No, it does not rely on the judgement of engines, it relies on the ability of the engines to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition.
No, it does not rely on the judgement of GMs. The GMs reduce the computation to relevant width and depth. The proof of the Four Color Theorem did not involve coloring all maps,
only a humanly determined relevant subset.

"any engines used would have been surpassed by new developments"
++ The newer engines can complete the same task faster.
A newer Stockfish released during the 5 years of the task can be switched to.
A released 8-men table base can be used, but does not change much.

"casting doubt on the entire process." ++ No. Computers are now more powerful than in 1976. That casts no doubt on the proof of the Four Color Theorem. Newer computers cast no doubt on the solutions of Losing Chess, Checkers, Connect Four, or Nine Men's Morris either.

"only a brute-force computation of all possibilities can be entirely reliable"
++ It is pointless to compute all possibilities of say 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? until checkmate.
We know the outcome for sure: white loses. What would be the point of this computation?

It is pointless to compute all possibilities of the final position of this game https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 until a 3-fold repetition.
We know the outcome for sure: a draw. What would be the point of this computation?

Look, if you knew what not being a stupid child was like, you might give that a try. I told you before. If you carry this on, you'll be reported.

Anyone who talks so much about their own intelligence level must be very insecure.

I think you must be very insecure to go round looking for people so you can tell them they're insecure. Insecurity must be on your mind much more than it's on mine, for instance. But since you're interested, let me tell you something.

This place is full of insecure people who are trying to gain something, as you're doing, by trying to talk other people down. The argument arises because there is a lot of people who consider themselves experts and talk complete rubbish with great authority. If they're challenged, they just refer to this or that "expert". And if someone gives a perfectly sound argument as to why what they said is wrong, they never get to answer that argument because they are incapable of it. All they do is make personal attacks. It's prevalent online.

So I tell them that if you make personal attacks then you've basically conceded the argument if you haven't even tried to answer and maybe they don't know that. So then they come on like trolls and maybe say they answered it 3301 posts ago and if I tell them that they didn't put forward a good argument at that time and that I made that clear at that time, they can become abusive or insist that they did and they certaintly aren't going to repeat themselves for people who didn't understand them the first tme round. It happens quite a bit with some I could mention. Others don't resort to that and are willing to explain it again but if the argument was no good in the first place, that doesn't help either. Usually they can't give convincing arguments in the same way I'm trying to convince you.

Pretty much anyone who does that is trolling, because what they're doing is abusive and it's quite common with some people here. I'm not talking about most people online or on chess.com. Just people with their own ego-problems. They usually bring up the subject of intelligence but I talk straighter than they do and I'm not going to be like such people and become sly and devious. Basically because I don't need to. No-one with real ability needs to.

There is a lot of people who accuse others of having their problems because, unconsciously, that's something they're focussed on. Are you one?

Let's just check this. Has Yoyostrng suggested anyone else was insecure?

He's suggested that he is insecure. We can assume that he does it a lot, because if you look at what he quoted, I certainly wasn't talking about my intelligence level. But I let that pass because I thought the other approach was more apt. 

Likewise Bayesian reasoning is the provably only fully consistent way of quantifying belief by reasoning from the specific to the general (inductive reasoning), and no amount of evidence can ever reduce a finite amount of uncertainty to zero uncertainty by Bayesian inference.

This is a (meta)fact about knowledge about the real world (such as all science) and also applies to questions that are in principle possible to decide by exhaustive analysis but presently impractical to do so. (I hope it is obvious that solving chess falls into that category).

The reason that AIs like Leela are designed to quantify uncertainty and not to ignore it is that that is appropriate.

@5193
"you know the outcome that white loses" ++ Yes 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for sure.

"pragmatically reasonable as a chess player playing the odds, but inadequate for a proof"
++ On the contrary: I would not bet on some chess players winning it as black against Stockfish.
For the proof it is adequate as it is sure knowledge white loses it with best play from both sides.
The use of knowledge is allowed and beneficial.
A solution of chess is no better with a full tree of 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? to checkmate than without.

Elroch

Really? Let's take a closer look at this so-called "provably only fully consistent way of quantifying belief by reasoning from the specific to the general (inductive reasoning)."  First, let's unpack what is meant by "belief." Belief, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof." So, in order to believe something, we don't necessarily need proof; we just need to accept that it exists or is true.  Now, let's look at "reasoning from the specific to the general (inductive reasoning)." Inductive reasoning is defined as "inference in which the conclusion about a whole is drawn from facts about some of its parts." In other words, it is the process of making a generalization based on specific observations.  So, what Bayesian reasoning is saying is that we can make a generalization about something (i.e., believe something) without proof, simply by observing some of its parts.  This may sound reasonable at first glance, but upon further examination, it is clear that this is not a sound way to form beliefs.  For one thing, it is based on the fallacy of induction, which is the mistaken belief that because something has always been true in the past, it will always be true in the future. This is clearly not the case; just because something has always been true in the past does not mean it will always be true in the future.  Additionally, Bayesian reasoning relies heavily on probability, which is inherently uncertain. As noted by statistician George Box, "all models are wrong, but some are useful." In other words, no model is perfect, and all models contain some degree of uncertainty.  Therefore, to say that Bayesian reasoning is the "provably only fully consistent way of quantifying belief by reasoning from the specific to the general" is simply not true. It is based on fallacious reasoning and uncertain probabilities, and is therefore not a sound way to form beliefs.

@5197
"Belief, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is
"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
++ And also
"Proof is the evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact"
"Evidence is matter submitted in court to determine the truth of alleged facts"
 

I think that the qualification regarding proof is unnecessary and maybe even incorrect. We don't necessarily accept something as true if it's proven to be true in circumstances where the proof may be faulty. There's a potential, infinite regression, regarding proof that the proof is true and proof that the proof of the proof is true.

Ultimately, belief is something else. Yes, it's the fundamental belief in the existence of something; or acceptance of the existence of that something. It's even ok to define belief by using the same word, since it is the existence of that something which is seen as true. 

The Platonics had it that belief is true, justified, confirmed belief but "true" is assumptive and circular and justification is a slightly different form of confirmation. So knowledge is highly confirmed belief.

So knowledge is highly confirmed belief.>>

More accurate to add "which we see as true", rather than "which is true", if we see the need to go down that road.

Only inductive knowledge (eg all scientific knowledge) is "highly confirmed belief".

Deductive knowledge results from the application of logical deduction to axioms.

For example, the fact that there is not a finite number of prime numbers is a proven theorem, not a "highly confirmed belief".

[To be pedantic, you do need to believe in the consistency of a formal system to trust it. Consistency means that there is no proposition in the system that is provably true and provably false. Consistency is never decidable (hence never a matter of known fact) for any system powerful enough to represent the natural numbers. But few believe Peano's axioms are inconsistent. This is based both on intuitive basis - Peano's axioms seem valid - and the lack of any inconsistency in all of mathematics built on them (an example of "highly confirmed belief")].

For finite systems, consistency is (in principle) checkable by exhaustive elimination. All questions about chess can be expressed within such a system.

No. You don't need to believe in the consistency of a formal system to trust it. You only need to believe that it is consistent if you want to use it to prove things. Consistency is not required for trust, only for proof.  Formal systems are useful because they allow us to explore what is true and what is false in a controlled way. We can use them to test our hypotheses and see what follows logically from what we assume. But we don't need to believe that they are consistent in order to do this. We can still use them to explore, even if we think there is a chance they might be inconsistent.  In fact, it is often useful to explore inconsistent formal systems, as they can help us to understand what goes wrong when a system is inconsistent. They can also help us to develop new ways of thinking about problems.

Chess is simply infinite as it will be based on infinite mindsets.

You're certainly on the right track, but are blatantly confusing the trees for the forest. A formal system is not just some opaque structure, but one that we create and understand. The rules of a formal system are not some ethereal set of guidelines that we have no control over, but something that we design deliberately to achieve specific goals.  The main point you seem to be missing is that a formal system is a tool, and like any tool, its efficacy is determined by how it is used. A hammer is a great tool for driving nails, but a terrible one for painting a picture. In the same way, a formal system is a great tool for proving things, but only if it is used correctly.  Just because a formal system can be used to prove things, that doesn't mean it will always get the correct answer. If the rules of the system are not followed correctly, or if the axioms are not chosen wisely, then the system will produce false results.  Therefore, it is not the formal system itself that we need to trust, but the people using it. We need to trust that they understand the system and are using it correctly. Only then can we trust the results it produces.