Forums

Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
tygxc
tygxc
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5261

@6983

"is everything else the same?, how much the same must they be"
++ The same is the same, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

"what to do when the good assistants disagree" ++ They should never disagree.
They should only cut short on what they are absolutely sure about, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

"or agree but are wrong?" ++ That should never happen.
That is why good assistants are needed, e.g. (ICCF) (grand)masters.

"There are certainly positions where the absolute world elite players disagree on this issue"
++ Most positions, in that case: calculate.
The shortcut is only to avoid useless calculation like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

"find positions with stuff that probably no human will judge correctly in a consistent manner"
++ Most positions are such that neither human, nor engine can evaluate.
That is why in most positions just calculation is in order until the 7-men table base is hit.

tygxc
tygxc
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5262

@6981

"the claim that a full bishop up, no compensation of any kind is a win is incorrect."
++ So you know it better than Capablanca who said so?

"a bishop advantage can often be a significant advantage in chess, it is not a guarantee"
++ It is.

"It is possible for a player with a bishop advantage to lose the game"
++ Yes if he errs he may even lose a queen up. We talk about optimal play from both sides.

"if their opponent has other compensating factors"
++ Then everything else is not the same.

"Additionally, the claim that a tempo up is enough to win"
++ I say on the contrary a tempo up is not enough to win. To win needs a pawn or more.

"The statement that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is a forced checkmate for black is also incorrect."
++ I gave a proof game above.

"It is possible for white to defend against this attack and potentially even gain an advantage."
++ If black makes a mistake, but not with optimal play by both sides.

"The assertion that weakly solving chess without any game knowledge would take 100,000 years is also flawed." ++ No it is correct.

"incorrect assumptions about the number of legal positions"
++ Tromp has proven that there are 10^44 legal positions and Gourion has proven there are 10^37 legal positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.

"many positions can be evaluated much more quickly using chess engines and databases"
++ The only sure evaluation is the 7-men endgame tablebase.

"It is important to carefully consider the evidence and reasoning behind any claims, particularly when it comes to complex topics such as chess."
++ That is why I take care to explain the facts and figures and back them up with references.

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5263
tygxc wrote:

@6981

"the claim that a full bishop up, no compensation of any kind is a win is incorrect."
++ So you know it better than Capablanca who said so?

"a bishop advantage can often be a significant advantage in chess, it is not a guarantee"
++ It is.

...

If you say so Ty.

White to move

 

tygxc
tygxc
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5264

@6986

Near the initial position.
This is another weird artificial construct.
Even 5 underpromotions to bishops.
Otherwise it is a known 4-men KBP vs. K draw.

Botlosenik
Botlosenik
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5265
tygxc wrote:

@6983

"is everything else the same?, how much the same must they be"
++ The same is the same, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

++++ This is not exactly the same. Without a definition, in fact, even with a definition, even only one assistant will give different answers at different times. Humans just aren't as consistent as you believe.

"what to do when the good assistants disagree" ++ They should never disagree.
They should only cut short on what they are absoltely sure about, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

++++ How "absolutely" sure? Given that the same person will give different answers to the same such issue, given different moods, different times of day and so on, the word "absolutely" is not as clear as you believe. Absolutely sure as in "9 out of ten times I will be right"? As in 99999 out of 100000?

"or agree but are wrong?" ++ That should never happen.
That is why good assistants are needed, e.g. (ICCF) grand(master)s.

++++ It most definitely will happen. Even the same GM will change opinion on such matters over time.

"There are certainly positions where the absolute world elite players disagree on this issue"
++ Most positions, in that case: calculate.
The shortcut is only to avoid useless calculation like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

++++ It is absolutely not clear to me that given perfect play by both players after these moves changes status of the position. It could very well be that starting pos is a draw, and after Ba6 it is still draw.

"find positions with stuff that probably no human will judge correctly in a consistent manner"
++ Most positions are such that neither human, nor engine can evaluate. That is why in most positions just calculation is in order until the 7-men table base is hit.

++++ So most of the time the assessment of the assistant is unnecessary (he dares not say he is sure), some of the time it is wrong (humans make mistakes), and all of the time it is an incredible slowdown. I don't think you understand how much of a slowdown it gives. Deep Blue was capable of evaluating 200 million positions per second (you can use a different number if you want, this was just the number I found that was easiest to find). You want to put a human in there to evaluate every position where there is a clear material difference. Now suppose the position is such that one player is down a piece but may or may not have sufficient compensation. Lets say something like e4 a6 Bxa6 Nxa6. Pretty much any move done by either side from that position will lead to another position where white is down a bishop ish, and question is whether there is compensation or "everything is equal". Let's say half the positions are like that. Give him one second per position, and he will still spend 100 million seconds to check each one of them.  You really think this is a good idea? I hope you are aware that computers typically do selective search already, so they do spend less time on weak moves? And that analysis of a bad move typically can be performed much faster than OK moves using alpha beta cutoff or similar methods since you get faster to positions that are shown to be suboptimal? Or the Alpha Zero algorithm, which will use neural nets to do super fast and often superior guesses of the value of a position without the need for a human?

 

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5266
tygxc wrote:

...

Otherwise it is a known 4-men KBP vs. K draw.

Same applies.

What's your point? How does it contradict, "a bishop advantage can often be a significant advantage in chess, it is not a guarantee"?

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5267
tygxc wrote:

@6986

Near the initial position.
This is another weird artificial construct.
Even 5 underpromotions to bishops.
Otherwise it is a known 4-men KBP vs. K draw.

You can't use this caveat all the time.  What you are freely admitting is that the absolute values you are claiming are not absolute, they are fluid, ergo your estimates built on them are garbage.  A tempo is not worth 0.33, and a bishop is not worth 3.  These are approximations of estimates.   The values are fluid.  Now, could you determine the average of all these fluid values and assign an accurate average value to them?  Yes.  By solving chess.  Your premise is entirely backwards.  You propose to use a bunch of inaccurate data and imperfect analysis to determine these values...but you are trying to bootstrap using analysis dependent on the faulty values you are trying to determine.  It's not hard to understand.

Your bishop assertion is drawn from Capablanca, taken out of context, and is ridiculous, since a minor piece up is the textbook example of not having enough material to mate alone.  It is easy to set up a vast number of positions where having extra tempi of any amount is still losing. 

It's New Year's Eve.  Time to move on from your unbreakable windmill.

BoardMonkey
BoardMonkey
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5268

tygxc is like the wilderbeast the lions can't bring down.

Botlosenik
Botlosenik
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5269
MARattigan wrote:
tygxc wrote:

@6981

"the claim that a full bishop up, no compensation of any kind is a win is incorrect."
++ So you know it better than Capablanca who said so?

"a bishop advantage can often be a significant advantage in chess, it is not a guarantee"
++ It is.

...

If you say so Ty.

White to move

 

With a little care it should also be possible to set up a mirrored position, where white wins, but if you add a B at the wrong position, he actually loses. I believe the following is such a position, though I did not spend much time on it. Could be I messed up. In this particular pos it is quite easy to see the B is in the way (compensation), but there could be other positions where the problem is far more subtle, where you have to see a non-obvious correct plan to see that the B is in the way of performing this correct plan. Making that puzzle is left as an exercise for the reader. happy.png



Edit: I now no longer think this is a win for white with the B removed. Black seems to have some really annoying maneuvers, like if white captures d3 it seems sufficient for black to be able to reply Ke5 (threatens Kf4 which would win) and then to capture on d6, and if white instead maneuvers his K to d5, it seems sufficient for black to play Kg7/Kg6/Kf7.

The following slightly more contrived position surely must be a working example of what I wanted.

 

Botlosenik
Botlosenik
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5270
DesperateKingWalk wrote:

[...]

Chess is not checkers!

 

Didn't you get the memo? Fencing is chess with sticks. Wrestling is chess with body. Politics is 4d chess. EVERYTHING is chess! Surely checkers must be chess too.

Botlosenik
Botlosenik
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5271
Optimissed wrote:


It seems we need to develop an algorithm which works well and which is 100% reliable. So what must be done first, in order that such an algorithm may be developed?

I made some comments  on such an algorithm above, starting with "Strange thread indeed". In short, I believe that without a revolution (as in making the existing stuff seem like children's toys) in either computer hardware or chess theory, what you are asking for is impossible in the foreseeable future.

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5272
Optimissed wrote:
...


So again, all the Rattigans and Elrochs really ought to be answering the question "what is the first thing to do before chess can be solved?

I already answered that one - understand what is meant by "solved". Deciding what you mean by "chess" is also a good idea, because the solutions will depend on the rules and there are different sets of rules.

 

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5273
Optimissed wrote:
RemovedUsername333 wrote:

@6960

There are several logical and mathematical errors in the provided statement. Firstly, the claim that "a full bishop up, no compensation of any kind is a win" is incorrect. While having a bishop advantage can often be a significant advantage in chess, it is not a guarantee of victory. It is possible for a player with a bishop advantage to lose the game, especially if their opponent has other compensating factors such as a material advantage or a superior position.

Of course, it isn't a guarantee of victory if the player with the Bishop doesn't know what they're doing. But in this kind of position, Bishop up on move 2, where if Black takes with 2. ....ba instead of Nxa6 then black also has a significant positional advantage, as well as the extra Bishop, it should be a certainty. In general, Bishop up so early in the game is an absolute guarantee of a win, provided the player with the Bishop knows how to play. It can always be swapped for one or more pawns. Of course, if someone can't play so well, they're just as likely to lose against a strong opponent as if they started a bishop down. 

SF15 prefers Nxa6 all the way to depth 37, so if you know what you're doing as the player with the bishop and you know the win is certain we'd all like to see your 10/10 straight wins against SF15 from that position using 2...ba. Feel free to post them.

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5274
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
...


So again, all the Rattigans and Elrochs really ought to be answering the question "what is the first thing to do before chess can be solved?

I already answered that one - understand what is meant by "solved". Deciding what you mean by "chess" is also a good idea, because the solutions will depend on the rules and there are different sets of rules.

Not if it's done by the naturally correct method, ...

Are you saying you don't need to understand what  "solve" or "chess" means before you can decide to attempt solving chess?

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5275

All you're doing is showing that SF isn't a particularly good analyst.

That should simplify your task considerably.

You already made the childish comment about stockfish and 10/10 wins. Try to show you have a mental age over 13, maybe?

Yes, I did. We never saw your games.

But you still claim to know the position is won for Black - against any opponent. That's because you don't know the difference between "know" and "guess".

Botlosenik
Botlosenik
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5276

OK, this discussion just got a bit too mature for me. 13yo? I might be able to pass as 11. I suppose I shall leave this to the experts.

Botlosenik
Botlosenik
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5277
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:


It seems we need to develop an algorithm which works well and which is 100% reliable. So what must be done first, in order that such an algorithm may be developed?

I made some comments  on such an algorithm above, starting with "Strange thread indeed". In short, I believe that without a revolution (as in making the existing stuff seem like children's toys) in either computer hardware or chess theory, what you are asking for is impossible in the foreseeable future.

 

I am not sure if most people realize it. But such an algorithm is in full development. And has been in full development for years. And many people here have it installed on their computer. 

An "algorithm" that tries to determine the outcome of any chess position just by looking at the chess position. And assessing if the position is a win, loss, or draw. And can do so with zero calculation or search. And can suggest moves in the chess game position. Along with the evaluation. 

The "algorithm" can play a strong game of chess with no calculation. And can beat most human chess players, just from looking at the chess position But plays far from perfect chess. 

I will give an example of the play from the the best "algorithm" we have on the planet. Playing against a weaker "algorithm". This game was played with zero search, and by only assessing the position on positional grounds. 

As you will see these "algorithms" can play at a very high level. And better then 99.9% of all human players. But without searching.  But playing perfect chess is not possible. As chess is ultimately a 100% tactical game. 

The best "algorithms" in chess are called Neural Networks. And are produced by a computer, instead of being coded by a human. 

The strongest of these Neural Networks are developed by Leela Chess Zero. And are in continues development. In a effort to created the strongest Neural Network possible. 

The strongest of these Neural Networks can be downloaded here.

https://training.lczero.org/networks/?show_all=0

And newer nets and stronger nets are created every hour of the day. To continually and hopefully created stronger Neural Networks for chess. 

These Neural Networks are how the modern chess engines play chess, and why the evaluations have improved so much in the last few years. 

This games was played today using the "algorithms" only to play the game of chess. The "algorithms" were possessed by Leela Chess Zero, and Stockfish.  And are setup by playing the game with 1 node as the time control in the chess GUI of Banksia. 

I have added annotations to the game. And the Centipawn Analysis so you can see the level of play in this game. 

Most human players score well above 1.00 Centipawns as their average error rate at 3 minutes a move.

Grandmaster score below .40 Centipawns on average as there error rate at 3 minutes a move.

GM Magnus Carlsen scored a error rate of .12 Centipawns when scoring 50 of his best winning games at 3 minutes a move. 

I am well aware of Leela and Alpha Zero chess, including their algorithms. As long as I followed the battle between Leela and Stockfish, it wasn't very clear which was the best, so the AZ/Leela approach is not yet established as "the only way", at least not yet. And it may be harder to improve on Leela than Stockfish actually, time will tell. Yes, Leela can train against itself with no human interaction, but there could be a upper limit to how well that works. Then on the other hand, if you want to use your rig for other games, Leela/Alpha Zero use the same software for many games, with self training, which means that it can get "as good at another game as it is at chess" without extra work for humans, so the approach has clear advantages. Alpha Zero for example was also trained to play Go (that was the first game) and chinese chess I think it was (too lazy to look it up). Oh, and by the way, the neural networks indeed get really good, "superhuman", at "intuition" about a position as you say, most people will be crushed by the neural network alone, but the programs, alpha zero and leela, do not only use that, they also use a type of tree search.

Either way, the leela/alpha zero approach as of now at least, does not lend itself well to the attempt to solve a game, only to train itself to become a very strong player.

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5278
Optimissed wrote:

Do you know the difference between being a clever-clogs 13 year old and the mature, wise and reflective 16 year old you should aspire to emulate? Apparently not. Grow up and I'll treat you as an adult.

Otherwise, don't tell others what they can know and what they can think when your own cognitive faculties are extremely under-developed.

Thank you. Happy new year to you too!

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5279
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:


It seems we need to develop an algorithm which works well and which is 100% reliable. So what must be done first, in order that such an algorithm may be developed?

I made some comments  on such an algorithm above, starting with "Strange thread indeed". In short, I believe that without a revolution (as in making the existing stuff seem like children's toys) in either computer hardware or chess theory, what you are asking for is impossible in the foreseeable future.

 

I am not sure if most people realize it. But such an algorithm is in full development. And has been in full development for years. And many people here have it installed on their computer. 

An "algorithm" that tries to determine the outcome of any chess position just by looking at the chess position. And assessing if the position is a win, loss, or draw. And can do so with zero calculation or search. And can suggest moves in the chess game position. Along with the evaluation. 

The "algorithm" can play a strong game of chess with no calculation. And can beat most human chess players, just from looking at the chess position But plays far from perfect chess. 

I will give an example of the play from the the best "algorithm" we have on the planet. Playing against a weaker "algorithm". This game was played with zero search, and by only assessing the position on positional grounds. 

As you will see these "algorithms" can play at a very high level. And better then 99.9% of all human players. But without searching.  But playing perfect chess is not possible. As chess is ultimately a 100% tactical game. 

The best "algorithms" in chess are called Neural Networks. And are produced by a computer, instead of being coded by a human. 

The strongest of these Neural Networks are developed by Leela Chess Zero. And are in continues development. In a effort to created the strongest Neural Network possible. 

The strongest of these Neural Networks can be downloaded here.

https://training.lczero.org/networks/?show_all=0

And newer nets and stronger nets are created every hour of the day. To continually and hopefully created stronger Neural Networks for chess. 

These Neural Networks are how the modern chess engines play chess, and why the evaluations have improved so much in the last few years. 

This games was played today using the "algorithms" only to play the game of chess. The "algorithms" were possessed by Leela Chess Zero, and Stockfish.  And are setup by playing the game with 1 node as the time control in the chess GUI of Banksia. 

I have added annotations to the game. And the Centipawn Analysis so you can see the level of play in this game. 

Most human players score well above 1.00 Centipawns as their average error rate at 3 minutes a move.

Grandmaster score below .40 Centipawns on average as there error rate at 3 minutes a move.

GM Magnus Carlsen scored a error rate of .12 Centipawns when scoring 50 of his best winning games at 3 minutes a move. 

I am well aware of Leela and Alpha Zero chess, including their algorithms. As long as I followed the battle between Leela and Stockfish, it wasn't very clear which was the best, so the AZ/Leela approach is not yet established as "the only way", at least not yet. And it may be harder to improve on Leela than Stockfish actually, time will tell. Yes, Leela can train against itself with no human interaction, but there could be a upper limit to how well that works. Then on the other hand, if you want to use your rig for other games, Leela/Alpha Zero use the same software for many games, with self training, which means that it can get "as good at another game as it is at chess" without extra work for humans, so the approach has clear advantages. Alpha Zero for example was also trained to play Go (that was the first game) and chinese chess I think it was (too lazy to look it up). Oh, and by the way, the neural networks indeed get really good, "superhuman", at "intuition" about a position as you say, most people will be crushed by the neural network alone, but the programs, alpha zero and leela, do not only use that, they also use a type of tree search.

Either way, the leela/alpha zero approach as of now at least, does not lend itself well to the attempt to solve a game, only to train itself to become a very strong player.

Correct. But we are talking about the network only. Without search.  And as I said the game was played with zero search.

And as of today. Lc0 has the strongest stand alone no search chess play. 

But Chess engines have to do both evalution, and search for strongest overall chess play. 

In this regard as a chess playing chess engine with search, or look ahead. 

Stockfish is the strongest chess player on this planet. As Stockfish has a better search then Lc0, but a weaker Neural Network. 

Remember because of the size of the Leela Chess Zero network and Bigger is better most often with Neural Networks. Leela Chess Zero must be played using a GPU for strongest play. This is because of the size of the Leela Chess Zero's Neural Network. Nothing is for free. Bigger Neural Network, the slower the search aspect of the chess engine. 

NNUE a smaller neural network was developed for Stockfish. And tries to get the best of both worlds. A benefit from the smaller but dumber neural network, but as a result can search much deeper in the chess position. 

As of today. Stockfish NNUE approach is better then the Lc0 approach. Faster search, smaller and dumber net vs Big smart net, slower search. 

But @Botlosenik is obviously correct. Neither SF nor Leela are relevant to solving chess; only to playing strongly against other limited lookahead players.

Botlosenik
Botlosenik
Dec 31, 2022
0
#5280
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:


It seems we need to develop an algorithm which works well and which is 100% reliable. So what must be done first, in order that such an algorithm may be developed?

I made some comments  on such an algorithm above, starting with "Strange thread indeed". In short, I believe that without a revolution (as in making the existing stuff seem like children's toys) in either computer hardware or chess theory, what you are asking for is impossible in the foreseeable future.

 

I am not sure if most people realize it. But such an algorithm is in full development. And has been in full development for years. And many people here have it installed on their computer. 

An "algorithm" that tries to determine the outcome of any chess position just by looking at the chess position. And assessing if the position is a win, loss, or draw. And can do so with zero calculation or search. And can suggest moves in the chess game position. Along with the evaluation. 

The "algorithm" can play a strong game of chess with no calculation. And can beat most human chess players, just from looking at the chess position But plays far from perfect chess. 

I will give an example of the play from the the best "algorithm" we have on the planet. Playing against a weaker "algorithm". This game was played with zero search, and by only assessing the position on positional grounds. 

As you will see these "algorithms" can play at a very high level. And better then 99.9% of all human players. But without searching.  But playing perfect chess is not possible. As chess is ultimately a 100% tactical game. 

The best "algorithms" in chess are called Neural Networks. And are produced by a computer, instead of being coded by a human. 

The strongest of these Neural Networks are developed by Leela Chess Zero. And are in continues development. In a effort to created the strongest Neural Network possible. 

The strongest of these Neural Networks can be downloaded here.

https://training.lczero.org/networks/?show_all=0

And newer nets and stronger nets are created every hour of the day. To continually and hopefully created stronger Neural Networks for chess. 

These Neural Networks are how the modern chess engines play chess, and why the evaluations have improved so much in the last few years. 

This games was played today using the "algorithms" only to play the game of chess. The "algorithms" were possessed by Leela Chess Zero, and Stockfish.  And are setup by playing the game with 1 node as the time control in the chess GUI of Banksia. 

I have added annotations to the game. And the Centipawn Analysis so you can see the level of play in this game. 

Most human players score well above 1.00 Centipawns as their average error rate at 3 minutes a move.

Grandmaster score below .40 Centipawns on average as there error rate at 3 minutes a move.

GM Magnus Carlsen scored a error rate of .12 Centipawns when scoring 50 of his best winning games at 3 minutes a move. 

I am well aware of Leela and Alpha Zero chess, including their algorithms. As long as I followed the battle between Leela and Stockfish, it wasn't very clear which was the best, so the AZ/Leela approach is not yet established as "the only way", at least not yet. And it may be harder to improve on Leela than Stockfish actually, time will tell. Yes, Leela can train against itself with no human interaction, but there could be a upper limit to how well that works. Then on the other hand, if you want to use your rig for other games, Leela/Alpha Zero use the same software for many games, with self training, which means that it can get "as good at another game as it is at chess" without extra work for humans, so the approach has clear advantages. Alpha Zero for example was also trained to play Go (that was the first game) and chinese chess I think it was (too lazy to look it up). Oh, and by the way, the neural networks indeed get really good, "superhuman", at "intuition" about a position as you say, most people will be crushed by the neural network alone, but the programs, alpha zero and leela, do not only use that, they also use a type of tree search.

Either way, the leela/alpha zero approach as of now at least, does not lend itself well to the attempt to solve a game, only to train itself to become a very strong player.

Correct. But we are talking about the network only. Without search.  And as I said the game was played with zero search.

And as of today. Lc0 has the strongest stand alone no search chess play. 

But Chess engines have to do both evalution, and search for strongest overall chess play. 

In this regard as a chess playing chess engine with search, or look ahead. 

Stockfish is the strongest chess player on this planet. As Stockfish has a better search then Lc0, but a weaker Neural Network. 

Remember because of the size of the Leela Chess Zero network and Bigger is better most often with Neural Networks. Leela Chess Zero must be played using a GPU for strongest play. This is because of the size of the Leela Chess Zero's Neural Network. Nothing is for free. Bigger Neural Network, the slower the search aspect of the chess engine. 

NNUE a smaller neural network was developed for Stockfish. And tries to get the best of both worlds. A benefit from the smaller but dumber neural network, but as a result can search much deeper in the chess position. 

As of today. Stockfish NNUE approach is better then the Lc0 approach. Faster search, smaller and dumber net vs Big smart net, slower search. 

But @Botlosenik is obviously correct. Neither SF nor Leela are relevant to solving chess; only to playing strongly against other limited lookahead players.

That is correct. As I explained here before. Stockfish and the other chess engines. Are type B Shannon chess engines. Only designed to defeat human players. 

Type B Shannon chess engines like Stockfish. Were not designed to solve chess. And could not solve chess even on a computer with infinite speed, and time. Because it was not designed to do such a task. 

Hm, if you throw in infinite memory in addition, then Stockfish algorithm with search depth tweaked to something like 10000 ply (max length of a legal chessgame) can trivially play perfect games, and also in analysis mode trivially tell you which moves, in any position are winning/drawing/losing. Sounds like "solve" to me.