Chess will never be solved, here's why

Do you guys know who has cheated hans or Magnus????

@6748

"Solving chess means 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) - Wikipedia"
++ Wikipedia is not the authority. The authority on this is Prof. van den Herik.
"ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and
strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions."

"The only way to do that is to go through the entire position tree"
++ No, you can ultra-weakly solve Chess without going through any tree at all.
To weakly solve Chess you only have to go through all 10^18 relevant positions.
To strongly solve Chess you have to visit all 10^44 legal positions.

"you don't know if black's position is a starting loss" ++ We do know Chess is a draw.

"you literally don't know if the starting position is a win loss or draw of white" ++ It is a draw.

"what I am talking about is literally solving chess"
++ Ultra-weakly solving Chess merits no further discussion: we know it is a draw.
Strongly solving chess merits no further discussion: 10^44 legal positions is too much.
Weakly solving chess is interesting and the 10^18 relevant positions can be done in 5 years.

"Strongly solving chess, but if you think about its the same case"
++ 10^18 relevant positions is not the same as 10^44 legal positions.

@6762

"you have zero facts to conclude chess is a draw" ++ There are millions of suporting facts.

"As chess is not won by tempos, or even having a material advantage."
++ Chess is won by checkmating the opponent. A direct attack on the king can only succeed if the opponent plays not optimally. The most feasible way to win is to queen a pawn.
'Other things being equal, any material advantage is enough to win' - Capablanca
A pawn is enough to win other things being equal.
A pawn in the initial position is worth 3 tempi.
A tempo is not enough to win.
Each move dilutes the 1 tempo advantage of white in the initial position.

"That is why chess has to be solved to answer the question is chess a draw with perfect play"
If chess is strongly solved, then chess is weakly solved as well, but that is not necessary.
If chess is weakly solved, then chess is ultra-weakly solved as well, but that is not necessary.
Example: Checkers has been weakly solved, not strongly.
That took 10^14 relevant positions, not all 10^20 legal positions.

@6768

"But if people can walk on the moon why can't they walk  on mars?"
++ Mars has more gravity than the Moon, but less than the Earth.
Mars is farther away than the Moon and that makes it harder.
Chess has more relevant positions than Checkers and that makes it harder.

No, but we are are able to discern what thread we are posting on and stick to the right topic.

He doesn't understand the difference between inductive evidence and proof.

Key to his false position is not understanding the definition of weakly solved, which he correctly quotes as:

"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"

but then weirdly misinterprets by claiming that "any opposition" means "the best few moves, as believed by an arbitrary imperfect chess player" rather than "ANY LEGAL OPPOSITION", as is obvious to any game theorist.

@6776

"Show one fact that shows chess is a draw."
Here are 136 - 17 = 119 facts, 119 games of 2 years each, ICCF (grand)master + engine, i.e. 4 centuries of engine calculations
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042 
There are many more such games. We have over 1000 ICCF WC finals games thus ending in draws and being perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
That is inductive evidence.

Deductive evidence is available as well.
It is a fact that a queen up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that a pawn can queen.
It is thus a fact that a pawn up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn.
Thus it is a fact that 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Every more move dilutes the initial tempo up.
Chess is a draw.

There is no cure for sloppy thinking in later years.

@6777

 "difference between inductive evidence and proof"
++ 'Proof is evidence compelling the mind to accept a truth or fact' - Webster

the definition of weakly solved:
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"

++ The definition does NOT say "ANY LEGAL OPPOSITION", it says: any opposition.
'To oppose = to resist against' - Webster
1 e4 and 1 d4 at least oppose to the draw, try to win. 1 f3 or 1 g4? oppose less or not at all.

"as is obvious to any game theorist."
++ Prof. van den Herik is the authority on game theory.
He wrote: 'it is beneficial to incorporate game knowledge into game solving.'
It is game knowledge that 1 e4 and 1 d4 oppose more to the draw than 1 f3 or 1 g4?
That game knowledge already formulated by Capablanca has been independently acquired by AlphaZero with only the Laws of Chess as input.
Input = axioms = Laws of Chess
Method = boolean operations = logic
Output = theorem = game knowledge
Once it is established how black can draw against 1 e4 and 1 d4,
it becomes a mere formality to prove the same for 1 f3 or 1 g4?

I've previously explained that deductive proof is impossible. That's obviously because a full solution of chess seems to be impossible: or even the so-called weak solution.

Given that it's impossible, and given that we still may want to reach a conclusion, then we have to use whatever methodology is available to us. That is necessarily inductive. However, I've noticed that a number of people misunderstand the relationship between inductive and deductive reason and don't sufficiently grasp the full implications of the truth that deduction has to rest up on premises. As such, syllogistic logic ultimately always rests on inductive ideas. That's just a unavoidable fact, from which there's no escape.

My approach is pragmatic. So for that matter is tygxc's but unfortunately, he isn't convincing, due to all the babble about solving in five years, etc. I attempt to support similar points; but in a much stronger form and without the weaknesses which he necessarily introduces, due to his strange, compulsive beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me that neither side is capable of learning and I'm sort of caught between them and have been for years. It should be obvious that this entire subject is about proofs, which are the ultimate object of any mission to solve chess, in the sense referred to here. Consequently, it seems very much to be yourself who is making assumptions. Maybe you can now understand my point of view.

If it is a given that chess can never be solved, in the sense that is generally referred to here: and that is a conclusion which is strongly supported by content of many threads like this, then all we can do is to rely on inductive arguments, which are extremely strong indeed.

I think I've figured it out. You have seen games that ended in a draw, therefore, for you chess is a draw. But I've seen games that end with white winning. Therefore, for me chess is a forced win for white. 

I suppose there are people who have witnessed black winning. I guess for those people chess is a forced win for black. 

Everyone wins.

PS: Chess is a forced win for white. 

I see your logic now. Given that two or three Presidents have been assassinated, It's logically necessary that such a gory fate will overtake them all, sooner or later. Obviously, that applies to chess.

There is no good reason to just play 960. We will never perfect chess. If you live to be 99 you wont live long enough

^^ it's certainly odd. I can't think of any justification for it.

Nor even  the same as 10^17 relevant positions.

Are you hoping to triple your money now? 

Exactly. He is personally aware of games that he believes were played perfectly and end in draws. Therefore he assumes all games, if played perfectly, end in draws. So I suppose his same logic could apply to presidents. 

The difference, I think, is that it's pretty easy to prove if someone was assassinated. But not so easy to prove if chess is a draw or forced win, even if we witness that draw or forced win personally. 

just saying..

https://phys.org/news/2013-01-red-pen-instructors-negative-response.html