Chess is bot impossible to solve. Yeah, humans probably (99.999999999%) won't solve chess, but the engines may solve it in the future if billionares pay for it. But there's nothing to worry about. Imagine chess is solved. Who cares? Will the super GMs start to memorize all the possible lines leading to win /draw? Certainly no. Even if they live and spend 500 years for memorizing them. It also won't effect on the chess players. Nobody will be able to memorize the lines. Even if it happens, chess will be still a challenging tatical brain game and memorizing won't be the key to improve. It won't be very important since it won't effect on our strategy and calculation. Just forexample the analysis tools will become much more exact and the cheaters may become more advanced.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
My first sentence was "Chess is "not" impossible to solve" I wrongly typed "b"
@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.
"Then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win."
i already directly explained how that isnt a proof. black doesnt have to make those moves.
its honestly incredible how you are failing to see this basic logic.
@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.
im actually baffled at how @tygxc cant seem to comprehend this.
in fact, the strategy stealing argument can literally NEVER WORK because white has no means of breaking parity outside of a capture or check.
Remember when @tygxc tried to argue that chess errors follow a poisson distribution when it only follows 1 out of the 3 conditions?
Not so incredible - @tygxc fails to see any argument put to him.
I made the same point in #9138. Zero response, but you can be certain that he will post exactly the same again once the replies have shifted back enough pages.
@9161
'we found that there is a clear correlation between the first-player’s initiative and
the necessary effort to solve a game' - Games solved: Now and in the Future.
4.3. The advantage of the initiative
defined the concept of initiative [117], as the right to move first
can the right to move first be considered as a small advantage from where the threat-space search can be started?
@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.
Guys, believe it or not this person has sat here and has been sustaining this exact same conversation for the past 2-3 years. @tygxc has never acknowledge points related to Computer Science. Has never acknowledged points related to Game Theory and Statistics. He literally even called Claude Shannon wrong the last time I posted in this thread.
Look, it really is not worth explaining why Chess is generally unsolvable today, and as a result can be a forced WIN/DRAW/LOSS for either white or black. There are more Chess games then there are bits in the Universe. All it takes is a SINGLE game in order to conclude is Chess is a forced win for Black or White (or a draw) and a result won't be solved until the entire table base is gone through. "Cloud computing will solve chess in 5 years", he near said this same statement 5 years ago, it won't ever happen. Get a giant Quantum Computer, put 100 of them in parallel, it still won't happen. These are a DIFFERENT CLASS of problem, unless you genuinely want to understand why this is more of a Math and Science problem, leave because even a 3000 GM will give a worse answer. There is no more strategy at this level. Chess is neither Weakly or Strongly solved, we don't know if it will or even COULD be. It is literally outside of the class of problems solvable by even our best computers.
The current engine result today (cause I remember @tygxc referencing that like it was the end all be all of game evaluation) is literally based of Heuristics. It tells you nothing about the end solvability of the game
@Optimissed
Nobody in that subthread appears to be asserting chess is a zugzwang or, apart from yourself, anything else.
Some positions are zugzwangs and most are not. They can't be forced.
Zugzwangs can be forced. If the starting position is a zugzwang, it may not be forced in the conventional sense, but there is no way White can avoid it.
Your argument is false and "for show" only.
This doesn't follow from your preceding statements. If your'e going to assert somebody's argument is false you should be prepared to say where the flaws are.
@Optimissed
Nobody in that subthread appears to be asserting chess is a zugzwang or, apart from yourself, anything else.
Some positions are zugzwangs and most are not. They can't be forced.
Zugzwangs can be forced. If the starting position is a zugzwang, it may not be forced in the conventional sense, but there is no way White can avoid it.
Your argument is false and "for show" only.
This doesn't follow from your preceding statements. If your'e going to assert somebody's argument is false you should be prepared to say where the flaws are.
In that case it's completely clear that you're attempting to make an argument with the fail-safe that you're not intending to make it. Sorry, I don't believe you. You're known to be dishonest.
Its literally insane the amount of effort and time you guys are wasting on this debate. There are MORE games than we could ever possibly compute in the next 1000 years (as we know). From the STARTING move of Chess it is unknown if White or Black is winning. StockFish 84 might give White a +0.51 advantage, but those are Heuristics, we don't KNOW. The initial position could be a Zugzwang, we don't know, in order to know we would have to parse the ENTIRE tree of Chess games from the starting move. Which we can't do, even with 1000 Quantum Computers. End of Discussion
@9171
"From the STARTING move of Chess it is unknown if White or Black is winning."
++ We know it is a draw.
"The initial position could be a Zugzwang" ++ It is not.
"in order to know we would have to parse the ENTIRE tree of Chess games from the starting move" ++ No. It is unnecessary to strongly solve a game to ultra-weakly solve it.
Strongly solving chess (10^44 positions) is now beyond reach, but weakly solving chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers, needs 10^17 relevant positions and can be done in 15,000 desktop years.
"There are MORE games than we could ever possibly compute"
++ The number of possible chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082.
However, there are 10^44 legal positions.
There are 10^37 legal positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
Chess it is a square dead draw!! it cannot be solved or white can never win but he dictates the draw!! those who tried to break out the square law of geometry failed to discover any illusion that the square it has more space advantage from any point when you point the other symmetry point of square surface!
@9171
"From the STARTING move of Chess it is unknown if White or Black is winning."
++ We know it is a draw.
"The initial position could be a Zugzwang" ++ It is not.
"in order to know we would have to parse the ENTIRE tree of Chess games from the starting move" ++ No. It is unnecessary to strongly solve a game to ultra-weakly solve it.
Strongly solving chess (10^44 positions) is now beyond reach, but weakly solving chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers, needs 10^17 relevant positions and can be done in 15,000 desktop years.
"There are MORE games than we could ever possibly compute"
++ The number of possible chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082.
However, there are 10^44 legal positions.
There are 10^37 legal positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
Bro I am actually becoming a victim to your troll. I am so glad you found that 10^37 number from who knows where, but did you know there are 10^17 GRAINS OF SAND ON EARTH. You seriously don't even understand how big 10^37 is. Also "We know it is a draw.", ok, lets just call it a draw. End of debate then, its solved, you did it, I can't wait to watch you get a Fields Medal. Now please stop continuing this conversation
Also just for my sake, and anyone reading, literally everything in that top half of your reply is wrong. You are just saying it as fact for I don't know what reason. Its like you have convinced yourself of what reality is and now you are trying to convince us. You got it fam, please stop talking because honestly anyone that just says blatantly wrong Chess information and tries to pass it as FACT in a Chess Forum should honestly be banned
@9175
Of the 10^44 legal positions only 10^17 are relevant to weakly solve Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
@9175
Of the 10^44 legal positions only 10^17 are relevant to weakly solve Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
Ok, congrats you did it, I guess no one has ever made that connection until you came along. Time to bust your PC and get your Fields Medal, Me and my Great-Great-Great-Great^30 grand children will be waiting
@9177
One desktop does not do it:
weakly solving chess requires 15,000 desktop years or 15 cloud engine years.
Anyway, we are close now:
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104
Each game represents 3 engine years.
@Optimissed
Nobody in that subthread appears to be asserting chess is a zugzwang or, apart from yourself, anything else.
Some positions are zugzwangs and most are not. They can't be forced.
Zugzwangs can be forced. If the starting position is a zugzwang, it may not be forced in the conventional sense, but there is no way White can avoid it.
Your argument is false and "for show" only.
This doesn't follow from your preceding statements. If your'e going to assert somebody's argument is false you should be prepared to say where the flaws are.
In that case it's completely clear that you're attempting to make an argument with the fail-safe that you're not intending to make it. Sorry, I don't believe you. You're known to be dishonest.
Its literally insane the amount of effort and time you guys are wasting on this debate. There are MORE games than we could ever possibly compute in the next 1000 years (as we know). From the STARTING move of Chess it is unknown if White or Black is winning. StockFish 84 might give White a +0.51 advantage, but those are Heuristics, we don't KNOW. The initial position could be a Zugzwang, we don't know, in order to know we would have to parse the ENTIRE tree of Chess games from the starting move. Which we can't do, even with 1000 Quantum Computers. End of Discussion
The initial position could be a Zugzwang, we don't know, in order to know we would have to parse the ENTIRE tree of Chess games from the starting move
Not true. If it's a zugzwang then Black wins. You have to parse the tree only up to the point that you've found a complete half forest (single moves for Black from each node; all moves for White) where each terminal node is a Black mate. If it's a relatively short forced mate, entirely conceivable.
There is also the possiblity of a proof along the lines of the one you first learned for KRvK which doesn't rely on any tree search (but it would obviously be rather more complicated).
I think you mean checkmate mate.