Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 299

EliMastey

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5961

Why do people talk about chess being solved when the point of the game is simply to play and to figure things out on your own? "Solving chess" would simply ruin the game, as it takes away the actual fun of figuring out positions that you haven't seen before.

Dollmaker44

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5962

TheChessIntellectReturns yazdı:

Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.

Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.

Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?

No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.

the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.

nothing in the world can change that.

So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.

If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.

So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.

If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.

<3

MARattigan

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5963

Elroch wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

A chess strategy is a decision process that suffices for all positions that can arise against any opposing play. i.e. it picks a move in every position that can arise when applying it.

I hope seeing the definition helps you.

To nit pick it needn't necessarily pick a move. It could pick a draw claim under the 50 move or triple repetition rules or the offer or acceptance of a draw or nothing at all if it's not your move.

These are moves in the general sense - choice of action when it is your turn,

In that sense agreed.

It could also leave you free to pick from a selection of moves (as in a strategy that takes one of the best moves from Syzygy when available),

I said it picked a move. I didn't actually say it always picked the same move in a given position.

Slight nuance. The strategy can be "you choose one of these moves" in which case the strategy doesn't do the picking. I'd still call it a strategy.

I would prefer:

A game strategy for a player is a function from the set of game positions with values that are (possibly empty) sets of actions for that player that are legal under the rules.

I am not sure why you want to permit an empty set. If it is your turn you need to do something!

Precisely because it's not always your turn - or you may be in checkmate or a dead position. Or you may be mid-way through a move and the strategy doesn't suggest you resign etc.

Where a game position means simply a situation arising in a game.

As you are aware, it only needs to be the positions that can arise when the strategy is being used. Quite an important point, including practically - as eg 10^14 versus 10^20 positions for checkers (if I recall).

Yrs I did make the point that the domain of my function could be restricted on that basis when I first posted, but deleted it on the grounds that it unnecessarily complicated things. The domain can always be extended to the full set of positions by e.g. mapping to {resign} or {pick your nose} or {} for positions outside of the restricted set, since the strategy will never lead to any of those.

Ir can as you say have practical implications, but the definition doesn't need to mention them.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5964

Optimissed wrote:

Don't forget, there's no proof available because the light coming from that star is millions of years old. Maybe it was changed to scrambled eggs in the meantime.

theres a huge difference between a mathematical proof and a scientific 'proof'. one is based on axioms and absolute certainty (disregarding godel and that stuff, of which ultimately doesnt change what's at hand here), while the other is based on observation and statistical likelihood.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5965

there is no scientist claiming a mathematical proof of the contents of the stars. thats a false equivalency

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5966

"Chess, however, cannot be represented mathematically"

your son is wrong, or you are using the wrong terms/understanding of them.

you just describe the rules of the game, the board, and the pieces. boom. mathematical representation of chess.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5967

Optimissed wrote:

I think you're wrong. I think my son's Masters Degree dissertation (MMath) was about the contents of stars. But it is meant as an equivalency in a different way. Scrambled eggs is ridiculous but can't be proven not to be true because we can't analyse the light being emitted from that star NOW.

Chess being a forced win for black is ridiculous in exactly the same way and it's difficult to prove that untrue, too!

A forced win for black is just as statistically ridiculous as the egg-star. i am not disputing that. however, tygxc's claim is that the forced win for black was NOT the same way ridiculous, and I was disputing that part. in fact, i was probably going to use the same analogy u did, with an egg star, or something like that.

MARattigan

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5968

Optimissed wrote:

...

Chess, however, cannot be represented mathematically. ...

http://home.planet.nl/~narcis45/Chess/Chess%20Math%20Definition.pdf

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5969

Optimissed wrote:

In his physics thesis he discovered evidence for an unknown state of matter and since then, it seems to have been somewhat confirmed. His thesis was to represent magnetism in terms of fermionic spins. I asked him if chess could be reduced to a set of equations such that if the equations were solved, we would could solve positions that way. He said no, it's impossible. That means, in reality, it can't be done say within 50 years at the present rate of progress.

ey yo thats really cool. thanks for defining more clearly what you meant by 'represented' and yeah, that was different than what i meant. i should have clarified what i meant better.

also " That means, in reality, it can't be done say within 50 years at the present rate of progress." - i agree with that.

when i say represented, i meant the rules of the game itself being put into a computable format. I didnt intend for the algorithm to evaluate within human capabilities.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5970

Optimissed wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

"Chess, however, cannot be represented mathematically"

your son is wrong, or you are using the wrong terms/understanding of them.

you just describe the rules of the game, the board, and the pieces. boom. mathematical representation of chess.

He's a brilliant mathematician. He's performed maths that NO-ONE has managed to do before.

we were using different terms.

UPChess13

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5971

T A B L E B A S E

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5972

recap: people were using different terms to define/understand things and that lead to confusion. outside of tygxc, there isnt much real disagreement besides terminology.

MARattigan

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5973

Optimissed wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

...

Chess, however, cannot be represented mathematically. ...

http://home.planet.nl/~narcis45/Chess/Chess%20Math%20Definition.pdf

No that's a static depiction.

Well whatever it is it represents chess mathematically,

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5974

Optimissed wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

In his physics thesis he discovered evidence for an unknown state of matter and since then, it seems to have been somewhat confirmed. His thesis was to represent magnetism in terms of fermionic spins. I asked him if chess could be reduced to a set of equations such that if the equations were solved, we would could solve positions that way. He said no, it's impossible. That means, in reality, it can't be done say within 50 years at the present rate of progress.

ey yo thats really cool. thanks for defining more clearly what you meant by 'represented' and yeah, that was different than what i meant. i should have clarified what i meant better.

also " That means, in reality, it can't be done say within 50 years at the present rate of progress." - i agree with that.

when i say represented, i meant the rules of the game itself being put into a computable format. I didnt intend for the algorithm to evaluate within human capabilities.

I'm sorry I was unclear. There are so many trolls and bozos around. It's difficult to tell who's on the level and who isn't. I was teasing you a bit because I wanted to see what your reaction is. At least you reacted in a way that makes sense. You are what you say you are. Sorry I had to find out.

all good.

DiogenesDue

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5975

Optimissed wrote:

Oh, you mean that a strategy is a legal move unless it's stalemate? That would include losing, probably. You're really all as daft as each other. Elroch isn't far behind you. At this point I'm thinking tygxc is a lot more sensible than both of you put together with btickler thrown in for luck, although I'm not sure it would really be very lucky for anyone who won him. If only tygxc could forget about the five-year-plan, I'd have no hesitation in backing him on average against any of you.

That makes perfect sense, since your derangements are so similar.

mpaetz

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5976

Optimissed wrote:

I think you're wrong. I think my son's Masters Degree dissertation (MMath) was about the

contents of stars. But it is meant as an equivalency in a different way. Scrambled eggs is ridiculous but can't be proven not to be true because we can't analyse the light being emitted from that star NOW.

You don't know what your son's dissertation was about, you don't know if he has a PhD, but you claim him as the authority that informs your understanding of most points being debated here?

Realize that according to you, your son could not have discovered anything about the composition of stars as he can't analyze the light being emitted from them NOW. Perhaps he did prove that some stars are composed of scrambled eggs.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5977

mpaetz wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I think you're wrong. I think my son's Masters Degree dissertation (MMath) was about the

contents of stars. But it is meant as an equivalency in a different way. Scrambled eggs is ridiculous but can't be proven not to be true because we can't analyse the light being emitted from that star NOW.

You don't know what your son's dissertation was about, you don't know if he has a PhD, but you claim him as the authority that informs your understanding of most points being debated here?

Realize that according to you, your son could not have discovered anything about the composition of stars as he can't analyze the light being emitted from them NOW. Perhaps he did prove that some stars are composed of scrambled eggs.

mpaetz did u see the part where i said that there is/was some definition confusion? also, you are making a mistake on a difference that optimissed and I pointed out. that is the difference between a scientific proof and a math proof.

whether the sun is egg is a scientific question. the complexity of solving chess is a math question.

also physics at that level is so freaking complex that optimissed cant be faulted for not knowing exactly what it was about (what he said was also somewhat rhetorical).

MARattigan

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5978

Optimissed wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

A chess strategy is a decision process that suffices for all positions that can arise against any opposing play. i.e. it picks a move in every position that can arise when applying it.

I hope seeing the definition helps you.

To nit pick it needn't necessarily pick a move. It could pick a draw claim under the 50 move or triple repetition rules or the offer or acceptance of a draw or nothing at all if it's not your move.

It could also leave you free to pick from a selection of moves (as in a strategy that takes one of the best moves from Syzygy when available),

I would prefer:

A game strategy for a player is a function from the set of game positions with values that are (possibly empty) sets of actions for that player that are legal under the rules.

Where a game position means simply a situation arising in a game.

Oh, you mean that a strategy is a legal move unless it's stalemate? That would include losing, probably...

No. A legal move is not a strategy. I mean a strategy is what I said. You seem to have problems with the term so I've told you what I mean by it.

Neither would stalemate include losing, but a strategy for a player could be a losing strategy e.g. one that maps the initial position to {resign}. You can have good strategies and bad strategies. The definition doesn't pass judgement.

tygxc

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5979

@8103

"Sveshnikov's plan: the conclusion has been reached before the investigation begins"
++ The aim of weakly solving Chess is not to ascertain that Chess is a draw, we already know that, but rather to establish how.

DiogenesDue

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5980

tygxc wrote:

++ The aim of weakly solving Chess is not to ascertain that Chess is a draw, we already know that, but rather to establish how.

Quoting for posterity.