Chess will never be solved, here's why

Please post any solid refutation of "The Bishop's?"

As it is demonstrated on this thread.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-boden-kieseritzky-gambit-is-best-by-test

to have a bond with someone, with emotions like affection and trust, trust being super underrated and undercreditted with how intense and important it can be.  and to be highly influenced by that persons actions and ways of living.

@7740

"Chess will be solved eventually."
++ Perhaps. 5 years and 3 million $ is a huge obstacle.

uve got your math wrong somewhere.  they have already spent over a dozen times that in terms of time and money.  

@7762

Stockfish has already been developed, the 7-men endgame table base is already completed, databases with games already are available.

3 grandmasters * 100,000 $/grandmaster/year * 5 years = 1,500,000 $
3 cloud engines 10^9 nodes/s during 5 years =                  1,500,000 $
__________________________________________________________________________

Total                                                                                       3,000,000 $

the "3 cloud engines 10^9 nodes/s during 5 years " is where you  have got it wrong.  there is no reliable source that puts chess even close to that level of complexity.  lowest I can find is ~10^30

@7764

I estimate 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s as 3000 desktops of 500 $ each,
written off in 5 years hence 3000 * 500 $ = 1,500,000 $.

To weakly solve chess you need only find 1 move for black to draw against whatever reasonable moves white tries. Hence Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.

3 cloud engines calculate in 5 years:

10^9 nodes/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 5 * 10^17 nodes.

It really depends on how you define the parameters of "solved". Either practical or theoretical. There will be a point where the game will be vastly different depending on the mode.

With time controls, playing unconventional yet viable lines or even other modes like Fischer Random are all possibilities imo. 

@7766

"It really depends on how you define the parameters of solved". 
++ Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and
strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.
The game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally.
We are talking about weakly solved here.

Yeah, but have you ever seen a right triangle? I'd prefer basically anything else.

As I've pointed out in #7961, and subsequently: 

(a) You're not talking about weakly solved; the definition you're quoting is flawed. 

(b) You may be talking about that definition but you're proposing to completely ignore it.

"Hence Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions relevant to weakly solving Chess." is a math error.  there is no reason to take the square root.  

That estimate would be in line with the empirical number for checkers (on a log scale).

@tygxc your 10^17 calculation relies on a pre existing algorithm that creates the best move for ____ on any given position.  im surprised but also not surprised that no one else was able to point this out.

That's a good point. If there is the capability of exhaustively solving chess for 7 pieces - one would think that it's theoretically possible to solve it for 32 pieces, especially if those 32 pieces all start from the same position.

It's merely ~100 times harder for each of the additional 25 pieces - lol. And the starting position doesn't help enough.

you guys are thinking in the wrong way, define what it means to solve chess? Is it just computing every possibility? I thought chess was just a game to have fun with???

i wonder how chess could be solved and what you mean by that

     Enquiring minds want to know whether there is any way that white (or black) can win by force from the starting position no matter what the other side does, or whether the game will be drawn if neither makes the smallest mistake.