Chess will never be solved, here's why

I'm born male and I identify myself as a man

No sport has been solved yet

     You can spend a lot of time reading through this thread and you'll see plenty of discussion and disagreement about that. Some say you need only examine the "best" openings (e4, d4, c4, Nf3), use engine-aided correspondence games as "perfect" opening play, and have a committee of five GMs examine super-computer analysis and exclude lines they feel aren't worth thorough analysis to get a few chosen variations worked all the way to the seven-piece tablebase. Others maintain that only an analysis of every possible variation from the starting position to checkmate or a known draw will yield an irrefutable conclusion.

     You can decide on your own criteria from wherever in that range you feel will be convincing. 

"centipawn"???

so if you could have captured a queen but you left your queen vulnerable, it is -1800 centipawns?

It is incorrect to think of a centipawn loss as being an underlying truth. It is an evaluation by some specific engine with some specific time, indicating its lack of full understanding of the position. an engine that has full understanding could only give 3 evaluations - 0.0, +infinity and -infinity, depending on the theoretical result with perfect play (instead of infinity, engines actually state the moves to mate assuming the winner wants to minimise this and the defender wants to maximise it.
Where a weaker engine gives an evaluation, a stronger one may give a different one in either direction, by any amount.

From now on, let's refer to this "perfect chess engine" as Stockfish: Final Form. Now here are a few questions:

1) What would be this bot's ELO?

2) Would it only classify moves into Best Move and Blunder?

3) Would the creation of this bot end chess as we know it?

…

It is true that game theoretic optimality and Elo are to some extent independent. Indeed, I believe it is possible in principle for there to be a game theoretic optimal strategy that would not be difficult to draw against. But such a strategy would be very different to an extrapolation of Stockfish (or any other engines, including AIs). The reason is that these imperfect engines aim to make the position as difficult as possible for the opponent. This tends to mean they play optimally when winning as a side effect of the main objective (centipawns, or estimated expected score for an AI).

To generate an engine that is optimal but easy to draw against, you really need two things. The first is a strong solution (so you always know which moves are optimal). The second is a strong engine (by human standards) that is not perfect (so gives a wide range of evaluations in almost all practical drawing positions). The strategy used is then to always pick the LOWEST evaluation move that is game-theoretic optimal. This should make it fairly easy for the opponent to retain the draw. Roughly what is required is that the centipawn "errors" of the strategy are sufficiently large to balance the errors of the opponent. Of course centipawn errors are not fundamentally meaningful, but the idea is that if the evaluation does not rise too much about zero, the opponent will retail the draw,

For example, let's consider the first position. The optimal strategy with low Elo plays the lowest evaluation first move that does not lose. This may be 1. g4, but since the evaluation of this at depth 42, using Stockfish 14 is a miserable -1.7, it is possible that this move is a forced loss. If it is, our strategy will choose 1.Na3 or 1.h4, each of which have evaluation -0.7 with a very deep analysis.

Suppose 1. Na3 is played, then our average player feels moving a central pawn is likely to be ok, so picks 1. ...d4. According to Stockfish 14 this is the fifth best move, but still leads to -0.4 evaluation. In this position white has multiple moves with evaluations below -1.0 and there is surely a low evaluation, game theoretic optimal move that will make it easy for black to retain the draw.

And so on, with white continually trying to keep the evaluation as much below zero as possible without losing, until a comical draw if black avoids ever playing a losing blunder. The key is that in low evaluation positions there are enough plausible moves that are optimal for black to avoid playing a blunder.

======================================================================

Anyhow, this contrasts with the notion of the Elo that is the limit of the Elo of imperfect engines like Stockfish or LeelaZero as they approach perfection by good fortune as they attempt to maximise centipawns. This can even be defined in a way independent of any future software development - imagine a sequence of copies of some specific iteration of Stockfish that is provided with increasing computing power and memory (eg double them, over and over again). It is not unreasonable to believe this engine:

1. approaches perfection
2. its Elo keeps rising
3. the Elo is bounded above

The last is a consequence of the finiteness of chess, I think. With a suitably constrained definition of player, you can't have an infinite sequence of players, each strictly superior to the previous one.

Guys almost 10k posts for this "unnecessary " argument let's go you all did 10000000 masters in debating damn it

As they say, "Chess played perfectly is a draw."

With a mathematically consistent implementation of the Elo system (where there is no rounding and you get a positive floating point gain for beating ANY other player), the curious situation arises that if one player could beat another all the time, repeating this match forever will achieve an infinite Elo - at every possible rating there is some finite number of wins that will gain another point.

The system is based on the idea that this doesn't happen because even the weakest player has some chance of drawing against the strongest player. This is not so unreasonable - it's just that the probability can be extremely low. Consider the strategy of randomly playing a legal move. This is weaker than any player who is not trying to lose. Yet it has a positive probability of drawing against any player (an absurdly low one).

Say the probability is 1 / 10^100 against the best engine possible (optimal and aggressive), then there is some finite Elo that is associated with this expected result of 1 - 0.5/10^100.

Anyone can beat stockfish if you give it limited time or search depth. The 250 rated bots are also stockfish. Your statement doesn't make any sense without making precise how much time each player had to think about his moves. I am certain that you don't win against stockfish if it plays at "maximum strength"(if that even exists...), not even at any rapid or classical time control.

Aha, but the king's gambit has been solved, I think without your contribution.

The size of a solution is what matters, not the number of possible games.

I think I solved the game of chess.....

Chess can very much be solved... every possible opening has been played millions of times..

take for example the current world chess championship match... the guy plays h3 in the opening and gets owned because he didn't follow theory.. if you don't follow the main lines you get owned..

Ah OK, I see. So suddenly you had a weak moment and you were somewhat interested...?