Chess will never be solved, here's why

we dont already know chess is a draw.  i have asked a dozen times and you have failed every single time to give actual evidence for this.  

@8252

"errors in your logic" ++ There are no errors. What you fail to understand is no error.

"the decisive game/ time per move" ++ The more time / move, the less decisive games and the less mistakes. At unlimited time zero decisive games and zero errors.

"1 error per decisive game" ++ Every decisive game has an odd number of errors.
At higher rates of decisive games there are games with 1 error, with 3 errrors, with 5 errors...
As the error rate and the rate of decisive games goes down like in Tata Steel Masters 2023 there are only decisive games with 1 or 3 errors. As the rate of decisive games goes further down,
like in the ICCF WC Finals, decisive games have 1 error only.

"comparison between alphazero and your '10^9 nodes' thing"
++ AlphaZero provides some peer reviewed conclusions of extensive calculations.
10^9 nodes/s is the present state of technology of existing cloud engines.
It mainly serves to convert positions to time needed.

"there were pre set starting openings" ++ No, in that table AlphaZero was free to open.

"your program could catch any errors made"
++ No. The program only calculates to the 7-men endgame table base.
If a white win were reached, then some black move was an error and has to be retracted.
If a black draw or win is reached, then the black moves need not be questioned, but alternatives for the white moves need to be explored.

"different nodes are of comparable strength"
++ Does not matter. The calculation just hops from the initial position to other drawn positions until it reaches a 7-men table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.

"the 'top 4' are going to have equivalent individual chances of finding the correct moves"
++ probability (all 4 top engine moves are errors) = (probability top 1 move is error)^4.

"a pre existing set of positions" ++ The task of the good assistants i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters is to work out suitable starting positions of preferably 26 men for the calculation by the modern computers i.e. 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s (or 3,000 desktops of 10^6 nodes/s).

"jump to the 10^9 nodes" ++ There is no jump. 10^9 nodes/s is the state of the art speed of existing cloud engines now. That is to convert positions to time needed.

"what you erred" ++ I did not err, you failed to understand.
If you are a math student, then you should be able to understand. It is only basic math.

@8269

"we dont already know chess is a draw" ++ We know Chess is a draw.

"give actual evidence" ++ I have given evidence several times.
1 tempo < 1 pawn. A pawn can queen, a tempo cannot. White cannot win.
Each move dilutes the 1 tempo, so if a forced win existed, then it must be short.
Chess has 10^44 legal positions, meaning < 73 non-transposing choices between 4 moves.  
Strategy stealing shows Chess cannot be a black win: for every presumed forced black win there exists a corresponding forced white win by losing a tempo.

The strongest Chess we have is the International Correspondence Chess Federation World Championship Finals: games last 2 years at a rate of 50 days per 10 moves, engines allowed, played by pre-qualified ICCF (grand)masters.
We have 1469 such games, of which 292 are decisive and 1177 are draws.
Assume chess a white win or a black win. Then there must be a probability of 1177 / 1469 of an odd number of errors. Try to fit a Poisson distribution of the errors per game with that outcome. It is impossible. That shows chess is a draw.

Now assume Chess is a draw. Then there must be a probability of 292 / 1469 of an odd number of errors. Try to fit a Poisson distribution of the errors per game with that outcome. It is possible. It shows that over 1000 of the draws are perfect games with no errors i.e. optimal play from both sides. All decisive games are lost by 1 error.
Some of the draws especially from earlier years have 2 errors that undo each other.

im literally a math student.  you are just having a dunning kruger moment, thinking you know something that the rest of the world hasnt figured out yet.  

your "top 4 engine moves" is also self contradicting to your own claims.  to find the top 4 engine moves would be 4^50 * 10^17 to calculate, as a heuristic.

and theres your error.

not even 1 sentence in you make an assumption.

it doesnt matter that a pawn could queen.

Strategy stealing shows Chess cannot be a black win: for every presumed forced black win there exists a corresponding forced white win by losing a tempo.

white cant lose tempo in that way, its physically impossible.

in fact, i can prove it.

@8272

"Chess is not won my material advantage." ++ It is.
'Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success' - Capablanca

"Do you need to be ahead in material to win a game of chess?"
++ The answer is YES! A direct checkmate of the opposing king is only possible if the opponent defends badly, i.e. does not play optimally.

whatever move white makes, black COULD follow this pattern: do the same move but replace a 1 with 8, 2 with 7, 3 with 6, 4 with 5, and vice versa.  after blacks move things are symmetrical, after whites move things arent.  therefore in the case of a symmetrical position black win, it is impossible for white to reach that position with a tempo lost, at least without a check or piece capture.

however, your argument makes no such check or piece capture provision.

hence, your argument must be wrong.

 "the strategy-stealing argument cannot be applied to chess" - wikipedia

heck, its so obvious that the source wiki cites just has it as a side note.

@8271

"im literally a math student" ++ Then you should be able to understand.

"you know something that the rest of the world hasnt figured out yet"
++ GM Sveshnikov had it figured out long before me.

"top 4 engine moves is also self contradicting" ++ No. It is not.

"to find the top 4 engine moves would be 4^50 * 10^17 to calculate"
++ That is nonsense. As a math student you should know.
There are no more Chess positions than there are Chess positions.

@8276

"the strategy-stealing argument cannot be applied to chess - wikipedia"
++ It cannot be applied to prove a draw, but it can be applied to disprove a black win.

"""the strategy-stealing argument cannot be applied to chess - wikipedia"
++ It cannot be applied to prove a draw, but it can be applied to disprove a black win." 

you do realize that they are talking about that you cant disprove a black win?

LITERALLY THE NEXT SENTENCE "It is not currently known whether White or Black can force a win with optimal play, or if both players can force a draw" - wikipedia

@8279

"I guess sacrifices in chess do not work"
++ Read the Capablanca statement carefully: 'Other things being equal'
Sacrifices can work if material is restored or gained after x moves.
Checkmate is an infinite amount of material up.
Sacrificial attacks only work if the opponent has defended badly: neglected the safety of his king, neglected the center, neglected development..., i.e. has not played optimally.

that logic is circular.  

your logic ignores the possibility of a starting position being infinitely up due to a forced checkmate

" GM Sveshnikov had it figured out long before me." 

no he didnt, you are just taking what he says out of context.

@8281

"wikipedia"
++ Wikipedia is only as good as the sources it quotes. In this case it is an unsourced opinion of some unknown wikipedia author. Everybody can edit wikipedia, no expertise required.

i wouldnt even need to be a math student to see where you go wrong.

you are making errors that I caught in middle school.

I actually was able to prove that a strategy stealing argument doesnt work for chess back in middle school.  I got inspired by the solution to chomp and wanted to see how it did with chess.  I then saw how it couldnt worked, and successfully proved the opposite.

@8284

"you are just taking what he says out of context"
++ No, It is the essence of his interview, it is even the title of it.

@8286

"successfully proved the opposite"
++ Well show your proof: show a consistent way to presumably win for black.
Whatever you come up with, there is a corresponding white win by losing a tempo.
White has many ways to lose a tempo: moving a pawn first 1 then 2 squares, moving a bishop  or queen twice along a diagonal or moving a rook twice along a rank or file.
White has ways to lose 2 tempi: moving a knight back and forth.

kinda funny how I find those quotes from the source they cite.

It has literally been years since I have found something adaquately sourced yet still wrong from wikipedia.  

the strategy stealing claim you have could easily have been figured out over a century ago, but yet does not appear in any major chess publication or on wiki.  why?

who first proved the strategy stealing argument for chess?