Chess will never be solved, here's why

@8772

"the initial search space is 10^3/4 4"
++ No. The 10^44 or 10^38 or 10^34 is the total number of positions, corresponding to the 5*10^20 of Schaeffer, the outer boundary of his Figure of Number of Positions (logarithmic).
Within that outer boundary lies his relevant rearch space.
Within that relevant search space lies his stored boundary along his seeded line.

“For black take the top 1 engine move”

That engine move is often wrong. 
“For black do not worry if the move is exact or not: once the 7-men endgame table base draw is reached, that retrospectively validates all black moves“

SO YOU LITERALLY ASSUME THAT THE BLACK MOVE IS GOING TO LEAD TO A DRAW AS PROOF THAT THE BLACK MOVE IS GOING TO LEAD TO A DRAW.

the top engine move has a very real possibility of leading to a table base loss.

secondly “For white consider the top 4 engine moves.”

By definition this is no longer a proof.

you have to consider EVERY move.  Regardless of whether it’s probable or not.

“ 17 s/move the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves with 1 error in 10^20 positions,“

this has not been proven.  You made that claim off of 2 data points that DID NOT MEASURE ERRORS SO IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCURATELY CLAIM A NUMBER OF ERRORS.

You also completely ignored where I pointed out that that alpha zero game database used human-set openings.

@8777

"That engine move is often wrong."
++ At 17 s/move on 10^9 nodes/s the top 1 black move is wrong in 1 position out of 100,000. However, do not worry about that. If the calculation ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw against all white opposition, then that retroactively validates all black moves as right.
If some black move is wrong, then no 7-men endgame table base draw can be reached against all white opposition and the error will show.

"ASSUME THAT THE BLACK MOVE IS GOING TO LEAD TO A DRAW AS PROOF THAT THE BLACK MOVE IS GOING TO LEAD TO A DRAW"
++ No. It does not matter where the black move comes from: a good engine, a bad engine or even a random generator. If some black move is wrong, then no 7-men endgame table base draw is reached and a black move needs retracting to correct the error.
A good engine with more time/move makes less errors than a bad engine with less time/move and than a random generator. A good engine does the job faster than a bad engine or a random generator as the latter need more retractions.

"the top engine move has a very real possibility of leading to a table base loss."
++ Yes 1 position in 100,000. Then a black move needs retracting.

"By definition this is no longer a proof."
++ It is a best first heuristic. If the good moves cannot win for white, then the bad moves cannot win either. If 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 cannot win for white, then 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? cannot win either.

"you have to consider EVERY move" ++ Every move that opposes to the draw. We can discard 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? right away. No need to burn engine time on what we already know.

"You made that claim off of 2 data points that DID NOT MEASURE ERRORS SO IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCURATELY CLAIM A NUMBER OF ERRORS."
++ 3 data points really, the 3rd is infinite time, 0 decisive games, making the extrapolation effectively an interpolation between 3 data points. The errors follow from the number of decisive games: each decisive game must contain an odd number of errors.
As the number of decisive games shrinks to zero with more time/move, so does the number of errors/game shrink to zero with more time/move.

@8778
"alpha zero game database used human-set openings"
++ Where in Figure 2 did you read that?

This is Tygxc's main technique.  Conclusion first, create data and numbers to support the already chosen conclusion second.  You know, the opposite of the scientific method...

The circular proofs where he attempts to prove X is correct using an assumption that X is correct as part of the proof itself and the use of assumptions that imperfect engines can render perfect evaluations and determine errors are just subsets of his backwards plans .

Not in my immediate plans, no.  But that also assumes our understanding of 'things' (eg - physics etc) is correct/absolutely correct, which is pretty debatable (this isn't a knock on science/predictability...I used to almost be a scientist once ).

We have to work with what we know, until we know something else.  If we don't, we might as well posit that a magic stalk of asparagus in a monk's robe will give us the solution to chess in a press release tomorrow.  I call this the Vickalan approach (he's a Tygxc predecessor from several years back, but just as annoyingly repetitive in his day).

"Used to almost be a scientist."

Unsure what that means. Sounded like

"a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea"

Agreed.  The philosopher in me just likes to chime in with reminders that it's all probabilistic.

I can't speak to the specific chance that @priestessparagus64 will tweet proof that the solution is colors working together toward their mutual benefit but, sadly, I imagine it's pretty small. 

One can hope though.

Got a Chem degree but I thought the Vogons would be here by now so I didn't bother doing anything with it.

@8783

"annoyingly repetitive"
++ You are annoyingly repetitive with your fauilure to understand that weakly solving Chess requires much much less positions than strongly solving Chess.

I’m pretty sure btickler is very aware that weakly solving requires less positions.  .  The thing is, there is currently no real estimate to what that “less” really is.  Sure, we are looking for a ~10^20 table, but we don’t know where to look for it yet.  So that space is, by default 10^34 44

Less positions, yes, never said otherwise.  10^17 positions?  No.  Just no.

To be pedantic, it's not less positions. It's fewer.

Also, the solution of checkers which has more directionality than chess (hence less transposition until the deep endgame, helping "small" solutions) only permitted a reduction by a power of around 2/3 rather than 1/2 to the state space complexity.

This point merits emphasis.

Unfortunately, it refutes the one node solution as well as others.

A discussion with Ty, who may be very similar to a participant in this group.

Me: you claim positions with underpromoted pieces cannot be part of a solution.

Ty: yes

Me: but underpromotion occasionally occurs as the only best move in the tiny sample of master games that comprises classical chess theory?

Ty: yes

Me: so positions with an underpromoted piece can't really be ignored, can they?

Ty: maybe not with one underpromoted piece.

Me: is there any reason that a position with one underpromoted piece can't lead to a position where the only best move is to underpromote?

Ty: might be, but I can't think of one. It's unlikely?

Me: right. There is no known reason. Then how about the same with positions with a couple of underpromoted pieces. Why would these not occasionally have a move where the best move is to underpromote? Even one in ten million

Ty: seems unlikely enough to ignore.

Me: so no good reason then?  And so on, so that you need to include positions with multiple underpromotions in a solution of chess, and you have a million times more work to do. Perhaps you should increase your fee?

Ty: [thinking]

what is this chaos

@8792

"positions with underpromoted pieces cannot be part of a solution"
++ The only reason to underpromote to a rook or a bishop instead of a queen is to avoid stalemate. Only the side that is winning has reason to avoid a draw resulting from stalemate.
Positions with 3 or more bishops or rooks on one side cannot be part of a solution of Chess.
Positions with 3 or more knights on one side could be part of a solution of Chess, and underpromotions to knights occur from time to time in perfect games with optimal play from both sides, but only in situations where a knight already has been captured.

The Laws of Chess include:
'3.7.3.4    The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously.'
If we modify this to:
'3.7.3.4modified    The player's choice is restricted to either a queen or pieces that have been captured previously.',
then all perfect games with optimal play from both sides stay exactly the same.

That is why Gourion's 10^37 is a more suitable estimate than Tromp's 10^44.