Chess will never be solved, here's why

Merci, I appreciate all inputs! This setup is part of a new variant, enigma chess. But yes, I believe that chess has been solved and also hasn't been solved. The extent to which a human can comprehend and replicate the solution is limited, and so is the computer's. Chess has a solution, for sure. But brute computation whether by a human or computer is, in my opinion, not powerful enough to bring that infinitely perfect solution to the fore. Thus, the solution to chess, relative to a human, is simply: “The strongest computer is the solution.” Nobody can argue with the best computer, and that computer will just keep improving until every possible chess position is accounted for and analyzed in every possible way, and the best move forward is determined under every possible circumstance. That could take quite some time, 😄 In that regard, chess has not been solved. The computer has not solved chess relative to the infinitely perfect solution to chess which is out there. (These are just my personal thoughts.)

Hi we tend to think it would take millions of years at the present rate of progress, except tygxc who says 5 years, as long as we buy the three GMs regular liqorice sherbets.

Five years in computer years is forever 😂 *joke

Yes well, there's so much calculation in solving chess. And storage and comparisons ....

I believe that matter, mathematics itself, and time are all relative. Call it the theory of general relativity of everything. :peaceful

@5892

"whether the game you're offering to solve includes it"
++ The same weak solution without the 50-moves rule also applies with the 50-moves rule.

"what do you mean by "chess" when you offer to solve it?"
++ The game as described in the Laws of Chess. https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 

"my games here" ++ Your games are not of interest. ICCF WC draws are of interest.

"What rules are you going to assume?" ++ The Laws of Chess.

"Will it take more than 5 years?" ++ Weakly solving chess takes 5 years.

Fair enough. Do you not think, though, that we couldn't think all things are relative if they are not also synchronously absolute? That is, if we think that some things are relative, doesn't that mean that we assume knowledge about them in an absolutist sort of way? Or is that knowledge also relative and absolute synchronously?

*almost everything. I believe also in the one thing that has always existed and is thus infinitely above everything else; that which can define everything else.

I don't pretend to know what's in your heart, but if I made that reference to someone..."a brief moment of semi-clarity".... I would definitely mean it as an insult.  

This is it in its simplest form: יהוה :peaceful

Can you point to any game theory texts that discuss games with no well defined yield?

According to @tygxc 

We are talking about solving chess, i.e. the game with all its Laws of Chess.

Those would allow for simultaneous resignation, or resignation simultaneously with making a move into a checkmate or dead position. They don't order the results in those cases in terms of yield to the players.

The players are also not made aware of the mood of the arbiter and since TCEC chess is also being discussed here the players are not made aware of when the server will crash and the TCEC win rule comes into force, so it's not a game of perfect information.

I would say game theory doesn't apply to all forms of chess we are discussing here.

All the papers on combinatorial games, several of which have been linked in discussions here.

Bear in mind that only the order of the results (win > draw > loss) is relevant for the analysis of the value of positions with optimal play. I feel you have in mind a different branch of game theory that deals with uncertainty if you think of this not being so.

I have ignored all the petty aspects of human chess and much else that is irrelevant to the theoretical analysis (as typical in game theory). Resignation and agreed draws are irrelevancies to evaluating optimal results. To the analysis it does not matter an iota whether a draw is agreed or another thousand moves are played to determine the same result. The only role of such actions in a theoretical treatment would be to acknowledge the correct result.

I am bearing that in mind.

The problem is that the possible results are not just win. draw, loss under FIDE rules.

If a player (a) checkmates and simultaneously resigns under FIDE laws he wins and so does his opponent. If he (b) checkmates and  simultaneously accepts a draw offer he wins but the game is drawn. If he (c) checkmates and does neither, he wins (and presumably his opponent loses, though it doesn't explicitly say that - given the first two cases are allowed, it's not obvious).

Some players might feel (a)>(c), others (c)>(a). There's no order given in the FIDE laws. Indeed some players might find (a) <draw, so long as opponent doesn't win in the latter.

This is easy enough to resolve by a simple change in the rules (several possibilities, but none so far suggested in the thread), but the change needs to be made before game theory can be usefully applied I think.

As I said, I (and anyone else dealing with the abstract game) couldn't care less about ridiculous things like someone resigning when they checkmate.

Game theory (and solving games) is only concerned with moves being alternately played on the board and results being reached. Hope that is clear enough.

Yes, I'm more or less in perfect agreement with that. (More or less because I think game theory could also be concerned with Bridge for example.)

But you can't carry on to conclude, "Game theory unquestionably does apply to all the forms of chess we are discussing here ... ".

The result of some of the forms of chess being discussed can be affected by flags falling or arbiters throwing a wobbler. Before you start applying game theory I think you need to modify the rules to discount such possibilities and the things you call ridiculous (how do you define that?), at which point the game will not be a form of the game that we are discussing here, except in the posts that are discussing chess in the context of game theory. 

(By the way you talk about moves being alternately played on the board. If you're taking "move" to mean a transition between consecutive game states as you implied in an earlier response, these needn't be effected by alternate players.) 

I would say that none of the games described in the FIDE handbook has a solution. Full stop. They can be simply modified to admit of a solution and that would be a first requirement before any useful game theory could be applied.

!) In my opinion, in chess the pieces speak louder than words. If someone says "I resign" when giving checkmate, the checkmate would carry the day, although I think an arbiter would be within his rights to cross examine the perpetrator and if it was deliberate the player could possibly be warned or even subject to sanctions. I also think an overly fastidious and pedantic arbiter could award a draw.

2) I think that you have a very strange idea of what game theory is. In any case, it should be clear that the only possible strategy in chess is to play good moves and anything else is an illusion or a delusion, so my point still carries. And also, solving chess doesn't count as a game, sorry.

Well, I obviously failed to grasp the point of your original post. My apologies. I need to have another go at that, but I won't respond immediately; I think I need a little time to consider if it implies that a strong solution of competition rules chess would fit in 10^44 classical bits.

So far as my use of strong solution of  game states is concerned, I have seen it stated that n-man (basic rules) chess is strongly solved by the Nalimov tablebases, which I take to mean each n-man position is strongly solved (under basic rules most people would identify "position" and "game state").

I spend probably more time on endgame problems than actually playing chess; they generally assume basic rules and they usually call for the solution (unqualified) of specific positions, by which they mean weak solution of the games starting with the positions, which is a similar use.

My point is the laws don't say that.

They do say:

12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed.

If the laws of chess are observed in that case, both players win.

5.1.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.