Chess will never be solved, here's why

@6814

"10^50 is the number of positions that need to be calculated"
++ Please stop such nonsense. There are only 10^44 legal chess positions,
the vast majority of them makes no sense like 3 rooks or bishops per side.
If you calculate all of those then you strongly solve chess i.e. create a 32-men table base.
To weakly solve chess you only need to calculate 10^17 relevant positions. That takes 5 years.

@6812

"We do not know what perfect play looks like."
++ We know exactly what perfect play looks like. Here is an example:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164344

"Chess computers have improved every year, year over year." ++ Yes, they make fewer mistakes.

"If chess computers are playing perfect chess. This could not obviously happen."
++ Chess computers do not play perfect chess, but approach it if given more time per move.
Maybe the top 1 engine move is not perfect, but then its top 2, top 3, or top 4 move is.

@6820

"No one knows the exact number." ++ We know the exact number of 10^44 legal positions.
https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking

"The Shannon number is 10^120 of positions."
++ That is wrong. Shannon estimated 10^120 games not positions and that was wrong too. There are between 10^29241 and 10^34082 possible chess games.
https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html 

"lets go with 10^44 as the true number of legal positions needed to solve chess."
++ That would be to strongly solve chess, i.e. generate a 32-men table base.
To weakly solve chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers, requires 10^17 relevant positions.

So-called strongly solving is a complete and total waste of effort.

That ought to be obvious.

1000 years is so far off the mark it's laughable, even doing it properly. In order to determine which lines make sense, it's necessary to have an algorithm which is totally accurate, unlike the current Stockfish type of thing, of course. And 3 Grandmasters guiding the analysis is just so ludicrous.

Naturally, such an algorithm would take up a great amount of processing capability. Since each position has to be assessed accurately as to whether it's worth keeping (not an obvious error) it's necessary that each position is analysed. This means that we're not talking about numbers of positions but numbers of games. That's the relevant factor: you can only do it by analysing every possible and relevant game. An irrelevant game, like an irrelevant position, is one where there has been an obvious error. There should be no need to go into position legality, on which so much time has been wasted, because if it's an illegal position, it isn't part of chess. Analysing as games, rather than as positions, means that illegal positions are eliminated. Of course, there's enormous redundancy. Redundancy saves time in processing and takes capacity, processing and time in sorting, selecting, storing and comparing.

At current and projected processing speeds, we're not talking about millions of years in processing. I and one or two others postulated that much earlier in one of these threads. But it was really only to prevent people from disbelieving. It's really probably billions of years. The maths is fairly simple and can be worked out on a small notepad. This is why tygxc is not taken seriously.

Edited so it makes sense. ^ (To all but MAR and ty)

I try to explain once more so that even those with IQ 60 can understand.

Chess has 10^44 legal positions. Strongly solving Chess would need to visit all of these,
which would take too much time and storage to be feasible.
10^44 means that if we analyse 44 moves deep with 10 choices each time,
then we have the whole of Chess.
10^44 = 2^146 so if we analyse 146 moves deep with 2 choices each time,
then we have the whole of chess.
10^44 = 4^73 so if we analyse 73 moves deep with 4 choices each time,
then we have the whole of chess.

Weakly solving chess needs to find only 1 black move as an answer to each white move.
In the initial position 20 white moves and 20 black answers each give 20*20 = 400 positions.
Now if only 1 black response to each white move, that gives 20*1 = 20 = sqrt (400) positions.
So in essence the difference between strongly solving and weakly solving is a square root.

Assume now we try to weakly solve chess considering all legal white moves, good or bad.
So that would lead to sqrt (10^44) = 10^22 positions, taking 500,000 years.
That is without any limitation: all legal moves considered, no matter how bad.

Let us now modify the Laws of Chess such that a pawn can only promote to either a queen, or a piece previously captured. That is a minor restriction. In the > 1000 perfect games with optimal play from both sides we have from the ICCF WC finals draws, 3 rooks or 3 bishops never occur on one side. That would reduce the restricted legal positions to 10^37 * 10 = 10^38.
If we try to weakly solve chess on that basis, then we need sqrt (10^38) = 10^19 positions.
That would take 500 years.
That is without any pruning, except a minor restriction on pawn promotions.

After inspecting a random sample of 10,000 such positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured, we observe that none can result from optimal play by both sides.
That leads to 10^38 / 10,000 = 10^34 reasonable positions.
If we try to weakly solve chess on that basis, then we need sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 relevant positions. That can now be done in 5 years.

It is possible that GM Sveshnikov envisioned an even smarter and more powerful pruning down to 10^16 relevant positions.

@6832

"predictions for the time required to “solve” chess have been: 1000 years, ..."
++ That all relates to strongly solving Chess: a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions.
Weakly solving chess just like Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers takes 5 years.

I've said a few times it will be in about 200 years. Not every possible position kind of solved, but the beyond a reasonable doubt kind of solved. Right now, because we are still in the very early stages of computer infancy, we can only just throw random guesses out. We aren't even close to any educated guesses. 

@6834

"I've said a few times it will be in about 200 years" ++ Sveshnikov said, I calculated 5 years.

"beyond a reasonable doubt kind of solved" ++ Weakly solved like Checkers.

"we can only just throw random guesses out" ++ We can calculate.

"We aren't even close to any educated guesses." ++ Some guess, I calculate.

Now I get what you get by arguments..

So many useful things 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Ego satisfaction

Time wasting

Energy wasting

Beating someone continuously then gets beaten up indirectly very badly(in terms of argument)

Enjoying the aggressive atmosphere by blabbering trash hearing trash and seeing trash 

Just BE QUIET PLEASE chess forums are for discussion..  7000+ posts OMG.. see in any argument both the sides have their points but just be QUIET pls

@6836

"You said 5 years" ++ Yes, after Sveshnikov said so.

"you said many things that are false" ++ No.

"It is magical how you know the exact number of legal chess positions"
++ No, Tromp has calculated that. https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking

"the length of a optimal chess game" ++ We know that too. In ICCF WC Finals games lasted between 13 and 119 moves, 42 moves average, with standard deviation 16.

"It is magical how you know what lines are meaningful, and what lines can be removed."
++ That is no magic, it is logic. Obvious errors can be removed, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?
Also by pure logic 1 e4 and 1 d4 cannot be worse than 1 a4, so 1 a4 can be removed.
1 Nh3 cannot be better than 1 Nf3, so 1 Nh3 can be removed.

"you claim Stockfish can play perfect chess"
++ Not my claim. I claim at 17 s/move on a billion nodes/s engine the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves with 1 error in 10^20 positions. 

"a method of making a 32 man tablebase of only 10^17 positions"
++ Not my claim. A 32-men table base of 10^44 positions is beyond current capability.
However, based on 10^17 relevant positions perfect play is possible: black has one path to the 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition whatever white does.

"Meaning never losing a game from the starting position."
++ Schaeffer has done the same for Checkers, with only 10^14 relevant positions of the 10^20 legal positions and by analysing only 19 of the 300 tournament openings.

"you are the only one on the planet that possesses such knowledge" ++ Sveshnikov was first.

"We would already have a 32 man tablebase of only 10^17 positions" ++ That is impossible.

"they continue to work on the current tablebase method of using retrograde analysis and looking at every position" ++ An 8-men endgame table base is work in progress.
The idea of weakly solving chess is not to create a 32-men table base, i.e. strongly solving chess, but to calculate from the initial position towards the 7-men endgame table base.

"demonstrate the perfect play of Stockfish"
++ Stockfish does not play perfect chess. It approaches it if given more time/move.

many+1

(I hope your nose doesn't get longer each time; it could become totally debilitating.)

My IQ is not 60, I'm afraid, so I got a bit lost. But I'm afraid it simply won't do. It really does not appear to me to be worth attempting to reconnect whatever remains of the higher parts of my cognitive functioning in such a way as to accommodate an understanding of any of this. I'm prepared to admit that there's a small possibility that I'm mistaken. However the general appearance is that of the ravings of a madman. I'm sorry. But thank you very much for your explanation, all the same. And Merry Christmas.

@6775

Can I just revive your comment to say your words right here

""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."

actually show you have a weak understanding of whats going on. Going through positions is going down a tree path , i actually wish there was a facepalm emoji.

if youre not open to to being wrong its like talking to a brick wall, I do not claim to know everything hell look at my mf elo, but as soon as you said "ICF players play better than Stockfish" there is just no hope

Well you are going to have to start calculating a LOT better. Because right now you are just randomly guessing. Sort of like throwing darts at a dartboard. Blindfolded. With your back turned, over your shoulder. Using only one finger.

No, come on and be fair. How can you throw a dart using only one finger?

I think it may be possible. You'd have to balance one end on your finger and flick. mmm OK.

If it was in a pub, after a couple pints, and enough encouragement, it goes from possible to probable. 

I'm sure you must really live just down the road from here. There are a couple of pubs in that direction where one hears that anything is possible.