Chess will never be solved, here's why

These are actually really interesting comments and topic!

@9119

I calculated before: 15,000 desktop years = 15 cloud engine years.
The link above of 95 drawn perfect games represents a few desktop centuries.

tygxc is definitely not the best arguing, lol. .

"Once proven black draws against 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3, it is unnecessary to do the same for the 16 other, logically inferior white first moves."

they literally havent been proven to be logically inferior. this is why people arent taking you seriously, with "logic" like that.

"Sveshnikov was GM.
He was 65+ World Champion.
He taught aspiring masters and grandmasters how to analyse openings with engines.

Those are facts, not opinion."

An opinion from a grandmaster is still an opinion LMFAO. Also, you gave an opinion taken out of context. if you read the full article, he was obviously exaggerating.

"Look at the link: 95 games that is centuries of computer time."

this means absolutely nothing. it's centuries of computer time... compared to the vastly larger amount needed to solve chess.

"I calculated before: 15,000 desktop years = 15 cloud engine years.
The link above of 95 drawn perfect games represents a few desktop centurie"

you actually didnt calculate before. I showed that you double counted nodes into moves analyzed and how u ended up with a figure wrong by a factor of over 1 million.

The article u cited used hundreds of millions of nodes per second to make ONE MOVE every minute With the accuracy of 99%. YOU CLAIMED THAT EVERY NODE HAD THE 99% ACCURACY IN YOUR CALCULATIONS.

finally @tygxc, you still havent even provided the proof that black doesnt win with perfect play.

you provided a claim, then i proved how that claim was wrong, then you refused to elaborate further.

in fact, math journals already agree with me, listing that the claim you gave cannot work because of the existence of zugzwang positions.

Congrats, you are about 1% along your way to understanding whether chess can be solved. Unfortunately, anyone can reach this point with 5-10 minutes pondering the matter.

Meanwhile....we had finally reduced he-who-shall-not-be-named to only posting ICCF updates, so don't disturb the peace ...

Findings so far:

1 d4 Nf6 draws (32 perfect games)
1 d4 d5 draws (13 perfect games)

1 e4 e5 draws (17 perfect games)
1 e4 c5 draws (14 perfect games)

1 Nf3 d5 draws (8 perfect games)
1 Nf3 Nf6 draws (8 perfect games)

A strategy to draw for either side: follow an ICCF WC drawn game for as long as possible,
then follow an engine set at 5 days / move
until it reaches a 7 men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition of positions.

@9128

"what about from a table base perspective? "
++ That would imply a strong solution, which requires a prohibitive amount of calculation and time.
Only the weak solution is viable now, and the ICCF WC draws are at least close to that.

I know (from this discussion) that you have very little understanding of uncertainty and its quantification, but consider the following situation:

There are two urns. One contains 1000 white balls. The other contains 999 white balls and one black ball. You take 95 balls out of one of the urns, without being aware which urn it is. All the balls are white.

Which urn was it?

When you can correctly answer that question you will understand what you can infer from 95 draws.

Did you ever consider it could be a zug zwang?

It's not a joke at all. White to move black wins.

Take that Alpha Zero AI chess thingy for instance

People still do not understand:

'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' - 'Games solved: Now and in the future'

For all practical purpose Chess already is ultra-weakly solved: the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
Strongly solving chess would require a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions, which is prohibitive.
That leaves weakly solving, as was done for Checkers. It needs 10^17 relevant positions, which takes 15,000 desktop years or 15 cloud engine years.

@9133

'Did you ever consider it could be a zug zwang?'
++ That runs contrary to centuries of game theory, saying that going first is an advantage.
This is easily disproved by strategy stealing.
Suppose 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win.
Then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win.

"++ No, also logic is allowed." @tygxc #9117.

Allowed, but apparently not mandatory.

Edit: It appears to be necessary to provide a hint to any ultra-weak minded individuals applauding @tygxc's ridiculous argument.

So that everyone (other than yourself) knows exactly what they're talking about.

Dictionary definition of urn:

1. n Container for a dead person's ashes.

2. n Large vessel containing tea.

3. n Place where a mathematician keeps his balls.

@9129

"what you can infer from 95 draws"
++ You have very little understanding of certainty.
The point is not only that 95 out of 95 games are draws after 1.5 years of analysis by 17 ICCF GM/SIM/IM with their engines, but also that draws are achieved in various ways.

White tries 1 d4: Catalan, Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Nimzovich Indian Defense/Queen's Indian Defense, Grünfeld Indian Defense all draw.

White tries 1 e4: Ruy Lopez/Italian, Petrov, Sicilian, French all draw.

So even if in the ongoing 41 games there would be a win in one line,
there are several alternative lines of defense to hold the draw.

++You have very little understanding.

No. Cuckoos in @tygxc's clouds I think.