Chess will never be solved, here's why

yes i saw i could have taken that if i would have stopped for a nanosecond, but who gives a f i won anyway

"1... e5 Grandmaster E selects this. It is probably that 1...c5 draws as well and 1...e6 and/or 1...c6 might draw as well, but a weak solution only calls for one strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw.
From now on no positions with a black pawn on e7 are relevant. This shrinks the search space."

"7...Nf5 Grandmaster E selects this. Only 1 way to draw needed."

yeah but you havent ruled out that black could be playing to win.

you have to search every single one and prove a draw/win for each black move.

your use of grandmasters is also redundant, because a computer can select moves better than any grandmaster could.

you also still assume that black is playing to draw and not win.

I hope i could play so magically and skillfully next time

@8053

"you also still assume that black is playing to draw and not win"
++ It has been established by now that Chess is a draw.
White has an advantage of 1 tempo called the initiative, but not enough to draw.
Black is at a disadvantage, but not enough to lose.
Chess cannot be a forced black win because of strategy stealing.
Formally you can count all draws and all black wins as black successes.
That has also been done in solving Losing Chess, which is a forced win for white. All black draws and black wins were counted as black successes.

"It has been established by now that Chess is a draw."

no it hasnt lmao.  if it was then that would be an ultra weak solve.  by definition.

"Chess cannot be a forced black win because of strategy stealing" 

this is factually incorrect. it is physically impossible to do a strategy stealing thing against black.  your example literally forced black to play a bad move.  plus, black can just mirror whatever white does.  impossible to strategy steal by definition.

@8052

"your use of grandmasters is also redundant, because a computer can select moves better than any grandmaster could."
++ No. The grandmasters work with seeded games that each represent 2 years of engine calculation.
Chess is most complex at 26 men. Computers get swamped from 32 to 26 men. So it makes sense that grandmasters with data bases handle 32 to 26 men and only then launch the engine.

"Chess is most complex at 26 men. Computers get swamped from 32 to 26 men. So it makes sense that grandmasters with data bases handle 32 to 26 men and only then launch the engine."

thats just factually incorrect what. 

you do realize that computers are FORCED to play suboptimal openings because they are literally too good at it otherwise?

@8056

"if it was then that would be an ultra weak solve"
++ For all practical purpose Chess has been ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.

@8058

"you do realize that computers are FORCED to play suboptimal openings because they are literally too good at it otherwise?"
++ Yes, in TCEC slightly unbalanced openings are imposed to prevent all draws.
However, it is inefficient to recalculate what already has been calculated.
Each ICCF draw represents 2 years of engine calculation under supervision of an ICCF (grand)master.

"For all practical purpose Chess has been ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw."

the fact you said "for all practical purposes" means it isnt ultra weakly solved.

the thing is that tygxc is arguing for it on a theoretical level.

@8061

"for all practical purposes means it isnt ultra weakly solved."
++ Formally not, practically yes.
The Riemann hypothesis is considered to be true. Several work on proving it, none on disproving  it. The Four color theorem and Fermat's Last Theorem were known to be true long before a formal proof was published.
Anyway Chess being a draw is formally only a plausible hypothesis not yet formally proven, while Chess being a white win, or even a black win are non-plausible hypotheses contrary to all evidence and logic.

"The Four color theorem and Fermat's Last Theorem were known to be true long before a formal proof was published."

i dont think you understand how the mathematical community works.  

Literally just a few years before the formal proof was finished for fermats theorem mathematicians were willing to believe rumors of counter examples.

just because the first googleplex of something follows your pattern doesnt mean the next google will.

"while Chess being a white win, or even a black win are non-plausible hypotheses running contrary to all evidence and logic."

actually, contrary to zero evidence/logic.  its just very statistically unlikely.

you need to address the fault in your strategy stealing claim btw.

@8067

"i dont think you understand how the mathematical community works."
++ I know that better than any here.

"mathematicians were willing to believe rumors of counter examples" ++ Bad mathematicians...

"contrary to zero evidence/logic" ++ I presented the evidence and the logic.
If you do not understand it, then that is your problem.

"you need to address the fault in your strategy stealing claim" ++ There is no fault.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 wins for black, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 wins for white.
Come up with any black win and there is a corresponding white win by strategy stealing.
Whatever black tries, white always has a way to lose a tempo. That is reductio ad absurdum.

It is false that there is a strategy-stealing strategy for white. It would need to cover EVERY black response.

Strategy-stealing is a way to construct an ENTIRE STRATEGY for one player from a strategy for the other player. This means a decision process for every position that can arise when executing the "stolen strategy".

You blundered. Search for anything on chess and perfect information. You will find very few sources that do not enlighten you. Particularly see the list of common questions and their answers in the search results.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chess+perfect+information