Chess will never be solved, here's why

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<<<Solving chess consists of finding an optimal strategy for the game of chess; that is, one by which one of the players (White or Black) can always force a victory, or either can force a draw (see solved game). It also means more generally solving chess-like games (i.e. combinatorial games of perfect information), such as Capablanca chess and infinite chess. According to Zermelo's theorem, a determinable optimal strategy must exist for chess and chess-like games.>>>

Here, strategy is being used in a different context or with a different meaning from how it is being used in this forum, where strategy seems to represent a permutation of moves. It's incorrect and confusing to call a series of moves a strategy, when it merely consists of finding the best moves available. The strategy is to find the best moves.

In the wiki article, strategy seems to be used differently in that an assumption is made that there is an optimal manner of pursuing the game of chess. That simply isn't true, because if chess is a draw by force, there will be myriads of lines that lead to a draw with best play by both sides. The assumption that there is exactly one drawing line and all the rest are wins is ridiculous. Since there's no evidence for it, we have to go by probability theory, which gives approximately zero chance of that being true. Therefore, the lines that are "best" will be those which are to the taste of individual players. Individual preference.

I don't know what this Zermelo's theory is and I'm going to look it up. I think it cannot possibly be relevant to chess and it is evident that the Wiki article isn't written by experts. Maybe it's based on out-of-date ideas from 25 or 50 years ago.

@7845
"prove it"
++ Checkmate in 83.

The "math person" I know best of all is my son, who is quite probably more qualified in maths than all the people commenting here, certainly including myself. However, he is literate. Language is logically constructed and so someone who thinks a singular term is a plural isn't necessarily logical enough to be a mathematician. However, I reject all the terms used here. For the purpose of solving, there is only good play and bad play. Good play is any move that doesn't change the game state and bad play is any move that changes the game state. The game state is the forced result by best play from both sides at any point in the game (any position).

Are you reasonably happy with that? Can I get away with rejecting all the confusing stuff and using clearer terms?

@7851

"here is an image demonstrating the simplification that checkers had"
++ For Chess a similar simplification results from weakly solving it.

"it's relevant search space"
++ A similar relevant seach space emerges while weakly solving Chess.
For example after 1 e4 no position with a white pawn on e2 will be relevant after that.

"with chess, we cant prove what is relevant or not yet"
++ For checkers that was not known in advance either.

@7859

"1 example isnt a proof."
++ If white plays differently, then white loses faster than in 83 moves.

<<The problem is we also need a solution for the irrelevant ones>>

Not at all. We need a solution for the fuzzy boundary between the relevant positions and the irrelevant ones. Because it is impossible to determine on sight which are relevant and which are not. I've been trying to explain this for years.

We have definitions for the solution of games. What is your definition for the solution of a fuzzy boundary?

For that matter what is you definition of a fuzzy boundary?

Your problem is that you don't know that all this has been gone through earlier and you aren't presenting anything new. That would be ok, except that you're telling others that you're the first one to refute tygxc and you're making other empty boasts. I'm not even the first one to see the mistakes others have been making, when they imagine they have it all perfect and pat.

I have on several occasions in the past accused you of having difficulty reading. I have to retract that. It seems that you find it easy to read far more than is actually written. 

@7859

"1 example isnt a proof."
++ If white plays differently, then white loses faster than in 83 moves.

"do you understand what it means to meet the mathematical standard of proof?"
++ Yes, much more than any here.

@7864

"the simplification happens before and during the solving process, not as a result of it."
++ You misunderstand. There are 2 simplifications in Checkers: transition tables and irreversibility. Most moves in Checkers are irreversible, only moves by promoted Kings are reversible. Checkers needs transition tables too. Most moves in Chess are reversible: only pawn moves and captures are reversible.

"1. e4 isnt known as the best move, it is simply the first guess of the solving processes."
++ 19 of all 20 possible first moves lead to draws, except 1 g4? loses by force. The moves 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 oppose more to the draw: make it harder for black to draw.

The "math person" I know best of all is my son, who is quite probably more qualified in maths than all the people commenting here, certainly including myself. However, he is literate. Language is logically constructed and so someone who thinks a singular term is a plural isn't necessarily logical enough to be a mathematician. However, I reject all the terms used here. For the purpose of solving, there is only good play and bad play. Good play is any move that doesn't change the game state and bad play is any move that changes the game state. The game state is the forced result by best play from both sides at any point in the game (any position).

Are you reasonably happy with that? Can I get away with rejecting all the confusing stuff and using clearer terms?

whats absolutely hilarious is that i did a basic game review and found that white survives at least 85 moves.  

@7868

"i did a basic game review and found that white survives at least 85 moves"
++ Show your game, I will show your error.
So now you agree with the obvious fact that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and hence does not need any consideration? 83 or 85 is basically the same: a loss.

@7869

"you reallllly dont know what it means to mathematically prove something."
++ I know that better than any here.

"if g4 loses by force, whats the number of moves until mate?"
++ 63 moves until a 7-men endgame table base loss.