Chess will never be solved, here's why

@9327

"Strongly' solving 8 man positions" ++ The 7-men endgame table base strongly solves chess for all positions with 7 men or less. On 8 men work is in progress.

"But isn't that with castling excluded?"
++ Irrelevant. Once 7 men are reached castling rights are forfeited.

"Plus its not really 'strongly'" ++ It is. Strongly means all positions.
Weakly means only one line for one side and all reasonable lines for the other side.
Half a forest instead of the whole forest. The square root of the number of positions.

"He is admitting that chess isn't solved." ++ For all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved and the game theoretical value of the initial position is a draw.

Chess is now almost weakly solved. We have 104 perfect games with optimal play from both sides in the ICCF World Championship Finals, all draws. A strategy for black to draw is to follow an ICCF WC Finals draw for as long as possible and then use a computer and an ICCF (grand)master at 5 days per move until a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached.

Strongly solving Chess, i.e. a 32 men table base is beyond reach of present technology.

@9292

"NF3 NF6 is the consistent black strategy to win. steal it."

1. You have to go further than that. Say 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4, how goes your strategy then?
2. Remind 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8 leads to a draw by 3-fold repetition.
3. A consistent black strategy is not only after 1 Nf3, also 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4.
4. White can always shed a tempo by moving a pawn 1 square and then another square. Black can too, but that would lead to an absurd tempo war where pawns are only moved 1 square, bishops and queens are moved back and forth along a diagonal, knights step back...

There exists no consistent strategy for black to win from the initial position, as white can steal it.

I saw I got to 2100 and struggled to break 1800 blitz too the only difference ws I was doing rapid +blitz at the same time so I broke the barrier in about 1-2(maybe 5?) months

"You have to go further than that. Say 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4, how goes your strategy then?"

just as well as before!!

it's YOUR strategy stealing. YOU have to prove that its a draw. do you understand the basic concept of proof?

"Remind 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8 leads to a draw by 3-fold repetition."
wow, yet another assumption of blacks moves by you.

"White can always shed a tempo by moving a pawn 1 square and then another square. Black can too, but that would lead to an absurd tempo war where pawns are only moved 1 square, bishops and queens are moved back and forth along a diagonal, knights step back..."

black doesnt have to do any of what you said. you claim any possibly winning position can be strategy stolen, and since none of those positions has been weakly solved, they could all be winning positions for black. black doesnt have to make any of those moves, but they CAN. this is basic logic. you are literally just admitting that your strategy stealing argument is flawed.

so you literally contradict yourself lmfao.

I dunno playing two time controls at the same time was pretty helpful but rn I only play rapid against people I typically challenge myself I stopped playing against random opponents it's more fun if your opponent actually talks I also like doing rapid odds cause it tends to be a lot of 1800-2000s it helps me focus down a peice

To get better at chess you kinda have to be good at everything that includes the time control (you can be better in classical than in blitz of vise versa ) but you have to be good at everything

"For all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved and the game theoretical value of the initial position is a draw."

you claim "for all practical purposes". thats not what the argument is about. the argument is about a HARD SOLUTION, and a HARD PROOF.

for all this talk about others not understanding the definition of ultra weakly solved, you sure get that definition INCREDIBLY wrong.

he doesnt have a formal proof, he just says "1 tempo is worth less than a pawn and you need a pawn to win" and "ooh look at these high level engine games, they couldnt have made any wrong moves...."

Stockfish is actually kinda dumb I managed to trick it with a queens gambit esc position when I was around 1600(my friends like to cheat) stockfish is good but not good enough to solve chess yet

@9341

The ICCF World Championship Finals are being played with 17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days per move.
So far 104 draws out of 104 games, all perfect games with optimal play by both sides.

@9340

"1 tempo is worth less than a pawn"
++ Yes 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn.
You need +1 pawn to win.
You can queen a pawn, but you cannot queen a tempo.

"++ Yes 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn."

[[citation needed]]

formal proof required.

"You need +1 pawn to win.
You can queen a pawn, but you cannot queen a tempo."

in fact, i have a direct counterexample to this claim, but im going to wait until you find it for yourself.

make a formal proof.

and how do you know its optimal play? you dont know how the other 10^17 games could have went.

@9333

"chess is a draw without any formal proof?"
++ I gave formal proofs.

Inductive proof. Observe the 104 games in the present ICCF World Championship Finals.
This is the strongest chess on the planet.
17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days / move.
All 104 games are draws.

Hypothesis: chess is not a draw.
Then all 104 games must contain an odd number of errors (?): 1, 3, 5...
E.g.
0 error: 0 games
1 error: 35 games
2 errors: 0 games
3 errors: 38 games
4 errors: 0 games
5 errors: 21 games
6 errors: 0 games
7 errors: 8 games
8 errors: 0 games
9 errors: 2 games
10 errors: 0 games

It is absurd, that only odd numbers of errors would occur, hence the hypothesis was false,
hence Chess is a draw.

Deductive proof:White has the initiative, an advantage of 1 tempo.
We know from gambits that 1 pawn in the opening is worth 3 tempi.
We know that 1 pawn is enough to win: by queening it.
Thus 1 tempo is not enough to win.
Thus Chess is a draw.

@9346

"how do you know its optimal play?"
++ After the first part of the inductive proof we have derived that Chess is a draw.
So the 104 drawn games in the ICCF World Championship Finals must contain an even number of errors (?): 0, 2, 4, 6...
E.g.
0 error: 35 games
1 error: 0 games
2 errors: 38 games
3 errors: 0 games
4 errors: 21 games
5 errors: 0 games
6 errors: 8 games
7 errors: 0 games
8 errors: 2 games
9 errors: 0 games

It is absurd, that all errors would come in pairs, especially while 17 different entities are playing.
Thus the distribution must be
0 errors: 104 games
1 errors: 0 games
2 errors: 0 games
3 errors: 0 games
4 errors: 0 games

So the 104 ICCF World Championship Finals' draws are optimal play from both sides.

i think he missed a basic proof logic class and just sees whatever he feels like as a "formal proof". he's got so many basic logical oversights i think he tricked us into thinking that he actually had any sort of background in game theory with him throwing around the different type of game solution terms. Because he's clearly now shown a complete lack of knowledge and that he just saw the terms and thought he understood them.

nobody with any semblence of knowledge of game theory would say "for all practical purpose, chess has been ultra weakly solved", because that's literally an oxymoron. a game is either considered solved or not solved. proven or not proven.
so many of his claims actually makes "sense" now if you consider his arguments as coming from the perspective of someone who doesnt understand game theory or math proofs at all.

@9344

"++ Yes 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn."

[[citation needed]]

'Should the opponent offer any material, even a Pawn, which in your estimation you may capture without danger, it is advisable to take the offered piece,
even if as a result full development is retarded for one or two moves.
If as a result of the capture full development will be retarded more than two moves,
then it is doubtful whether the capture should be made.
It might be risked with the White pieces but never with the Black' - Capablanca.

"++ After the first part of the inductive proof we have derived that Chess is a draw.

no proof given. you just claimed a tempo was not enough, and as everyone around you has pointed out, thats not a proof. you just claimed a tempo was not enough and didnt provide any evidence.

"It is absurd, that all errors would come in pairs, especially while 17 different entities are playing."

you dont get to say something is "absurd" and invalidate it. thats not how proof works.

you are literally claiming that something doesnt exist because it isnt convenient for your argument.

here's me using some of your logic:

'its "absurd" that the game could be anything but a black win'. therefore, chess must be a forced win for black.

3 tempi = 1 pawn is no more valid than:

Pawn = 1

Knight = 3

Bishop = 3.25

Rook = 5

Queen = 9

The above are all human approximations. They do not hold up even now with Stockfish, Alpha Zero, or Leela, which have different valuations.

This debate is still in exactly the same state it was years ago. Chess is not proven a draw with best play (nor indeed can humans or current engines determine "best play"). A solution is not forthcoming in our lifetimes, technology being at least 10-12 orders of magnitude short of tackling the issue (10^43 positions to traverse). Quantum computing will not do it, and cloud computing will not do it. Moore's Law is also going to fall woefully short for the foreseeable future.

Tygxc will opine that that he can arbitrarily shave away 20+ orders of magnitude. He cannot. He still has nothing to show, thus his fall back to ICCF draw results, which prove nothing. He will cite the work of people who have told him flat out his numbers are bollocks...so take everything with a big grain of salt.

Claiming to "know" chess is a draw is also a futile assertion.

One tempi can =1/3 a pawn or 6 pawns depends on the position