in all reality this question is more based on computation than it is any form of Chess "gameplay"
Probably correct, but I don't think the possibility of human mathematical analysis, possibly computer aided should be rejected outright. Not got much further than a few basic endgames so far, but I think that may be lack of application. I agree, "gameplay" is irrelevant because there's no known correlation with theoretically effective play.
wouldn't finding a "complete half forest" for the game require you to complete the entire tablebase?
No. I think SF without any tablebase will find such trees for most mates up to about 6 deep on my old PC in under an hour by selective forward search. (Can't swear to it but that's a different story).
I could be misunderstanding you because I have not heard the term before
Yes, sorry. I made it up.
is that basically saying you only have to parse down the game tree (from start) until you find a string of moves that will lead to a win for either side?
The whole game tree is not searched to the same depth, but you need to find winning responses for every opponent reply.
the only amount of solved games (forced mate without playing BAD moves) are 7-move Tablebases, an entirely minuscule portion of the games possible combination of moves.
Correct so far as publicly available tablebases are concerned. Marc Bourzutschky has produced a small fraction of 8 man DTC tablebases, but not much foreseeable prospect of solving the starting position by tablebases this eternity.
@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 thank you for actually giving a response based in the field this question is in (I am not saying the only discussion has to be scientific, but we shouldn't go around in circles). Now I will be the first to say I am no where near an expert in this field, I am just a comp sci grad, but still in all reality this question is more based on computation than it is any form of Chess "gameplay".
Now to respond, wouldn't finding a "complete half forest" for the game require you to complete the entire tablebase? Essentially the same as generating all the combinations possible akin to my first reply. I could be misunderstanding you because I have not heard the term before, but is that basically saying you only have to parse down the game tree (from start) until you find a string of moves that will lead to a win for either side?
I would have to look more into that, I have not looked into this problem for a while because I am pretty sure it is literally not "worth" discussing (in the sense that the Riemann Hypothesis isn't worth discussing), but I am pretty sure that would not be possible since the only amount of solved games (forced mate without playing BAD moves) are 7-move Tablebases, an entirely minuscule portion of the games possible combination of moves. But Let me know if I am thinking about that incorrectly