Chess will never be solved, here's why

"Many Americans" must be exceptionally ignorant, then. You said it! But a failure to learn from the mistakes of others is a far worse error than making such mistakes in the first place, especially when we have the capability, in the light of present day knowledge, to see those mistakes made in the past for what they are. England has learned from those mistakes and moved on but the USA wants to repeat them all and more besides. You repeat the point about "taking up the white man's burden" but England has never been a particularly racist society. However, I was talking about free speech and hypocrisy!

Meanwhile, there were a lot of people who were intolerant of the restoration of the monarchy and all it entailed. They tended to be the people who went to America on the Mayflower, so they could continue to make the lives of others a misery. Of all the colonies founded, only one in America was based on tolerance. All the others were at least to some degree despotic and governed by bigots.

Sorry, I forgot that you're perfect. My mistake.

I'll tell you what though. For perfect people, you don't half defend yourselves at the slightest hint of criticism. I suppose that's why you're such a great nation.

p.s. learn what the word "hypocrisy" means and how it is normally applied and you'll be doing even better than the magnificently patriotic job you're already doing.

This, for example

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more 
 
hypocrisy
/hɪˈpɒkrəsi/
 Learn to pronounce
 
noun
 
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"

is entirely wrong.

What a wordsmith. Sure you aren't ... er ... ? I mean, not so well? Time of the month or whatever?

Anyway it sounds like it. No amount of dictionary reading is going to make up for the lack of a good education but you could at least find out what a hypocrite is. I don't pretend to be what I'm not but that isn't actually what a hypocrite is. Find out. I think they've changed a lot of dictionary online definitions so as not to upset people. Find out what a hypocrite is.

When you've found out, then attempt to ignite your massive brain to work out why it applies to you and not to me. I'll give you a clue. I am not responsible for any errors or sins committed by past generations of ANY nation. You seem to think I am. I was wondering out loud why SOME people belonging to a certain nationality are so ego-centric that they are completely incapable of learning  from the mistakes of others, because the notion they could ever make any mistakes is so completely foreign to them. Not all people of that nation but some. You're clearly one of them and you are hated by very many people here. I've tried to show that I don't bear a grudge but clearly you haven't been taking the tablets again.

     Yes, many Americans, and Russians, and Englishmen, and people in every other nation on Earth are willfully ignorant and believe in "my country, right or wrong". This condition has existed everywhere through human history. 

     Thanks for your amusing comment reinforcing my point.

* * *

It's like the difference between nationalism and patriotism - two terms many people conflate. Patriotism comes from the pride for the good things your country has done. Nationalism comes from the pride for no matter what your country has done. Nationalism always leads to conflict.

@7455

"due to having to do this with quintillions of positions" ++ Not according to me.
General case: calculation until the 7-men endgame table base.
Special cases: no further calculation for clear wins or clear draws.

"an amateur human chessplayer to make a proclamation as to whether other things are equal"
++ No. Sveshnikov called for good assistants, I understand that as (ICCF) (grand)masters.
But yes, for 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? it is that obvious that also an amateur human chessplayer can see it.

I would remind you that it's almost always you who brings up the subject of IQ. ...

What a whopper!

@7426

"worst moves according to an unreliable evaluator that you know to be entirely wrong sometimes (i.e. the move it thinks is best is a losing blunder)."
++ I have even quantified the error rate: 1 error in 10^5 positions for a 10^9 nodes/s engine calculating 17 s/move.

The flaws in your method have already been pointed out.

You say here 

Your desktop is 1000 times slower than a cloud engine of 10^9 nodes/s. Time * 60 gives 5.6 times less error. 

If you were to look at these games as you steadfastly refuse to do, you will notice that four of them were played at 37 mins. per move. According to your figures, 17 sec. per move on your cloud engine is equivalent to about seven and a half times the time I  allocated on my desktop, so according to your "calculation" these games should have 1 half point blunder in around 42,500 ply.

The four games have a total of 290 ply so according to your "calculation", the expected total number of half point blunders in the games is about 0.007.

User @cobra91 has carefully checked the actual total with the Syzygy tablebase here. It comes to 11.

YOUR CALCULATIONS DON'T WORK. CAN YOU STOP POSTING THEM, PLEASE?

Thus 1 case in 10^20 positions where the table base exact move is not among the top 4 moves of the 10^9 nodes/s engine running 17 s/move.

Thus nothing, of course.
As only 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess,
that means 0.001 error in the solution, i.e. not a single error at all.

Apart from obviously not, from the above; what solution? You're not even planning a solution according to any sensible definition.

The peer reviewed paper 'Games solved: Now and in the future' by Prof van den Herik states:
'it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based methods in game-solving programs'

Problem is you don't seem to have any.

The peer-reviewed paper 'Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZero' has 'knowledge' in its title. It leads to things we know, not things we guess, believe, or think.

It leads to things AlphaZero guesses. You use "guess" and "know" interchangeably, so I would have guessed you'ld say that (without actually knowing).

What's it got to do with your proposal to solve chess? Aren't you planning to use some version of Stockfish?
It has only the Laws of Chess i.e. axioms as input and performs only boolean operations i.e. logic to acquire knowledge i.e. theorems.

Precisely the same can be said of the program that produces FIDE's online version of its laws. It doesn't acquire any knowledge or state any theorems. With the current level of AI programs can'r really be said to know anything at all. You get to know what the program's algorithm produces; nothing more.

This paper ranks the first moves in figures 5 and 31:
d4 > e4 > Nf3 > c4 > e3 > g3 > Nc3 > c3 > b3 > a3 >
h3 > d3 > a4 > f4 > b4 > Nh3 > h4 > Na3 > f3 > g4.

Whoopidoo! I gave you my ranking earlier in the thread.

Once black has one path (there may exist several) to the 7-men endgame table base draw against the 4 best moves that oppose most to the draw,

There are only three possible outcomes. No such thing as opposing more.
then it is trivial to find such path to a draw or even a win for the 16 worst moves.

It might be trivial, but you haven't ventured to show how you can do it against SF15 from 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6. (Not that I think SF15 would manage it either against perfect play.)
You could object it is not complete, but you cannot object it is not valid.

The fact that it's not complete means it's not a valid solution.

In general a chess engine cannot correctly evaluate a chess position,
only the 7-men endgame table base can.

However, some positions with > 7 men are clear wins or draws and need no further calculation.

If you have a big red telephone to the Gent upstairs that is. The rest of us would need a solution.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is an example of a clear loss for white. Stockfish says -8.1.
A full bishop up with all the rest being equal is more than a pawn up and is thus enough to win.
I have even demonstrated it is a forced checkmate in 72.

Or sometimes various other figures or a mate in 2 for Black as I demonstrated using the same method. (You are joking aren't you? It's not always clear.)

The final position of this game is an example of a clear draw with 12 men.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 

I tried it with two engines in Arena. Are you sure your big red telephone took this line into account?

@7504

"You're not even planning a solution according to any sensible definition."
++ Weakly solving just as sone for Checkers:
calculating from the opening to a 7-men endgame table base draw.

You've already claimed Checkers wasn't solved because not all openings were included in the solution. Whether or not that was the case you're planning to not solve chess for exactly the same reason (among others).

"Problem is you don't seem to have any."
++ you < me < grandmaster < SF ⋘ perfect. 
I do not qualify as one of the 3 good assistants, which would require (ICCF)(grand)masters.

You'ld be better just running three copies of SF on a desktop. Unless you're willing to wait for them to run SF for 5 days before adjudicating it would do just as well. Even if you're willing to wait 5 days every time, you're not guaranteed any improvement.

Definitely cheaper.

[Reinserted for context: The peer-reviewed paper 'Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZero' has 'knowledge' in its title. It leads to things we know, not things we guess, believe, or think.]

"What's it got to do with your proposal to solve chess? Aren't you planning to use some version of Stockfish?" ++ Yes, Stockfish running on 3 cloud engines with 3 grandmasters using knowledge to launch and occasionally terminate calculations.

None of which are AlphaZero as far as I can see. So again, what's it got to do with your proposal to solve chess? 

"With the current level of AI programs can'r really be said to know anything at all."
++ The peer-reviewed paper has knowledge in its title, not guess, think, or belief.

Oh sorry. I didn't notice that. Of course that means AZ is sentient and knows what you say it knows. Has to be true if it's peer reviewed.

"I gave you my ranking earlier in the thread."
++ You are not qualified. Otherwise publish your findings in a peer-reviewed paper.

"There are only three possible outcomes. No such thing as opposing more."
++ There is a thing as opposing more.
If say 1 e4 leaves only a series of only moves to secure the draw, and if 1 a4 allows say 6 different moves to secure the draw, then 1 e4 opposes more to the draw than 1 a4.

Absolutely not in terms of perfect play.

"how you can do against SF15 from 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6."
++ How I, or you, or Carlsen do against SF15 has nothing to do with solving Chess.

Neither have your proposals. In particular your big red telephone is not a valid logical method.

"The fact that it's not complete means it's not a valid solution."
++ Incomplete is not the same as invalid. After the good moves are proven unable to win for white, then it is trivial to repeat the same procedure for the bad moves.

How can you say it's trivial when you can't do it?

And nobody knows what most of the good and bad moves are until someone (competent) manages to produce a solution.

"The rest of us would need a solution."
++ Some patzers may not understand that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses.

No it doesn't. Not even with Stockfish as White. Try it.

If you can't do it, you're one of the patzers. You don't understand things you can't do. (Doesn't apply just to game theory.)

"I tried it with two engines in Arena" ++ Two bad engines... That position cannot be lost.

Your big red telephone better than both, is it? Doesn't auger well for your project because one of them was SF15 which I think you're planning to use.

In any case you'ld consistently lose against either, so I think we can confidently dismiss your assertion that the position is a clear draw as just so much more BS. 

I would remind you that it's almost always you who brings up the subject of IQ. It's your obsession and not mine. It's also a bit of a far stretch to equate discrepancies regarding a few findings in a subject with derision for the entire subject; and it really shows how you think. It shows that you make things up to deliberately attempt to falsely show others in a bad light.

Thinking about what you were saying yesterday, I would say that the amount of hostility you display very often in arguments you cause with very many people indicates strongly that to have that amount of anger on tap, so to speak, you must have a sort of reservoir of anger in you.

That indicates that you have underlying anger against yourself, so what causes it? Why is it that it's like a button is pressed, especially with regard to some moral issues or issues that you see as moral? And you become not only unreasonable, but hostile and you deliberately distort just about anything, in order to try to show others in a bad light. I mentioned before what others tend to think of you and I would say it's due to that. It's the deceit, the twisting and misrepresentation of other people's statements. I'm wondering what causes the degree of anger you have against yourself. Maybe I could try to guess. Quite a lot of people have already tried to guess what it is, of course. There's one theme that consistently comes out and I have to say that my mind is also drawn to that explanation.