Chess will never be solved, here's why

@7055

"If both these players play perfect chess. Then why do all have different chess ratings"
++ The rating reflects the results of all games they ever played.

"And what about these guys with higher chess ratings" ++ These earned their ratings years ago, when more errors were made and it was easier to gain rating and earn GM titles.

"How do you play perfect chess and be lower rated then all these ICCF players"
++ Because it is now so difficult to gain rating or earn grandmaster titles, as many play perfect chess and the many draws lose rating that offsets the gain of the few wins.

@7056

"using chess engines is unreliable" ++ The chess engine is reliable to calculate, but not to evaluate. To evaluate the 7-men endgame table base is reliable: draw / win / loss. The engine just serves to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base.

"a programme that stores every possible move in a huge database" ++ You cannot store every legal move: you will end up with 10^44 positions and that is too much. However, you can store only the relevant positions: 10^17.

"detects which sequence of moves leads to a checkmate" ++ No, weakly solving Chess does not lead to checkmate, it leads to a 7-men endgame table base draw or to a prior 3-fold repetition.

"we don't know which is a forced win..." ++ We know Chess is a draw.

Chess will be completely solved in the future. It might take more than thousands of years, but there will be a time when our civilization becomes advanced enough. 

What if you train stockfish for 2 years? I think his rating would be 564555555468 ngl Dont cancel me plz

I thought I was being courteous by answering  your questions. Apparently this was a mistake, you answered this attempt with rudeness. I shall venture not to repeat this mistake in the future.

I could explain in detail how you were being rude, but having seen how you respond to courteous posts, and how you have also gone after others even in the short time I have been here, I am sure you would be all too happy to make that into a pissing contest that I do not wish to take part in.

Only if we don't become advanced enough to have better things to do.

Perhaps we will become so efficient at producing and consuming resources that people will be able to have their smartphone interface projected directly into their eyes so that they can spend every waking moment staring at it, which it seems many people want. Wouldn't that be awesome?

@7076

"how ICCF player play perfect chess"
++ Yes, statistics show >99% of ICCF WC Finals games are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. I presented samples of such perfect games above.
Here is one more: in 57 moves from the initial position to a 7-men endgame table base draw.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164274 

"If you play perfect it is not difficult to have a perfect rating"
++ It is difficult: playing perfect chess against other players that play perfect chess leads to draws and loses rating instead of gaining rating.

"ICCF players have a different rating, because they do not play perfect chess."
++ No, because of playing opponents that play perfect chess too and because of playing more or less opponents that do not play perfect chess.
In the WC32 of 17 participants only 4 lost 1 or more games and 13 played perfect chess.

Troll man!

Yea, like you have ever been on the side of anyone who has not knelt to your precious ego. I will block you for now. You have nothing to tell me, you have not said anything that was useful to me since I arrived, and you will not listen to what I have to say.

In my view, you should have stuck to your original position and not responded again. He has a desire to be indulged and will use any amount of provocation and manipulation to get it. Going silent is the way to deal with a person like that.

You may have a point. It's a small matter though. It's not like I am going to make him see the error in his ways.

Didn't you mean long before 30 moves?

But it's not limited by the 50 move rule because claiming is optional. And in a practical game you don't claim as soon as it's reached if you have mating material anyway (or even if you don't in many cases). 

Oh, do shut up. Nobody's interested.

Because you're the one that keeps calling people morons.

Such vitriol on this thread.

@7032

"Didn't you mean long before 30 moves?"
++ The shortest transition with optimal play from both sides from the initial position to a 7-men endgame table base draw took 31 moves:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164331 

Final position has 10 men. In which 7 man tablebase did they look up the draw?

Mine was faster anyway.

     Even top GMs make mistakes and misjudgements. Today's analysts find errors in games from yesteryear that were considered brilliancies. So how can a group of GMs (smokers or not) be expected to recognize perfect play? How can we rely on their decisions as to which lines to ignore? 

     Top engines will beat any GM. Today's top engines will beat the top engines of five years ago. By the time this five-year "solution" process is complete it will be out of date. 

     There is no way Sveshnikov's plan will produce a definitive solution. There is no way that a brute force calculation of all possible lines, from the opening position to checkmate or a hopeless draw, can be accomplished within a reasonable period of time using today's technology, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

     The only possibility for solving chess I can see is a revolutionary "great leap forward" in data analysis technique or/and computing/storage technology. There is no reason to believe this will never be possible, although I hardly expect to live to witness such an outcome.

The longest chess game is around 6000 moves possible, isn't it? We have limited number of choices in total, not infinite. Game has to end in six thousand moves, one way or another.

So we have 32 pieces, finite number of possible moves. Computers can't compute and store all combinations? to a hard drive?

Then analyze all static positions and give everyone of them a positional value? It doesn't look impossible at least. Just need vast computation power and correct way to approach to the problem.

8848.5 moves long. But 5800 or 8848.5 moves long makes no practical difference. Either is impossibly long with current technology and ideas if the starting position is a draw. If it's a mate in 16 that's different.

(That's competition rules post 2017 of course. Under FIDE post 2017 basic rules or pre 2017 rules the longest game is infinite.)