Chess will never be solved, here's why

@9459

"not a single person agrees with you"
++ Their fault, not mine. I try to patiently explain as clearly as I can, but that is all I can do.

im a math major at a university do you not think i have access to published mathematicians?

they completely agreed with everything (pertaining to mathematical proof) that ive said, and while they were much more polite about it, they basically called you [not intelligent] and in serious need of basic math proof education.

bro calls the difference between an analysis and a full proof "weasel words"

Wait long squash got muted

Sadness

LOL i needed that, thank you.

Didn't he get muted cause he went to far talking about racism ?

could you give me some recommendations for long squash moments?

Maybe the instine buda,Elon on chess=useless

lol lexiii

The weasel words: "all of the posts in this forum strongly suggest that @tygxc doesn't know what it means to solve a game"

The elite GM version: "@tygxc definitely doesn't know what it means to solve a game"

@9470

"I want a game with 1. g4 ... d5 2. e3"
++ See @9415

Solve Chess

I would imagine that even if computers make a way to play with 100% accuracy, then the worst case scenario would be that Chess is replaced by Chess960, seeing as for computers to solve that, they would effectively need to solve Chess Nine hundred and sixty times. The best case scenario is that computer vs. computer Chess is nullified, but human Chess is still playable. Currently, even the 3200 bot (which I know isn't the best in the world) can still get hung up in certain positions.

Chess is not infinite

Why is it practical to regard something as something it is not?

Computers will never be perfect. They will make a mistake eventually even if they can supposedly play perfectly. Furthermore, chess is a human game. Humans do not posses a data bank that can hold the information necessary to always play chess perfectly. Nothing in this world is perfect and nothing ever will be.

If a chess bot knew every possible continuation of a game of chess, wouldn't it be able to play perfectly? I suppose it both would and wouldn't. The reason I say that, is it would make the best move every time, but that might not have the best results--If you play as black against the 3200 bot, and set up a fool's mate, it likely wouldn't be able to mate because it didn't think that you would actually make such a bad move, so it blocked its queen with, say a knight, because that was the 'best move'

The actual explanation for your 104 draws is that engine play has tightened up considerably post-machine-learning, and human GMs can no longer find "suggestions" to good lines for engines anymore. Engine evaluations with a hidden disaster on the horizon are disappearing over time. But both engines and human GMs are *far* from reaching perfect play...what engines have reached, however, is a plateau where human GMs can no longer do anything but follow along with great difficulty. You equate this with perfect play, but it's just the threshold where human beings leave the equation in terms of determining what perfect play looks like.

Human beings have played some paltry trillions of games of chess (and certainly not multiple trillions of unique games). Engines are already set to surpass this if they have not already, yet still will have only played about 1 position out of every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 unique positions (i.e. 10^13 vs. 10^43).

100% Accuracy is not that at all. The current measure for "Accuracy" is derived from human and engine play, which are both imperfect. Ergo, 100% accuracy by a faulty measurement/methodology means nothing in terms of solving chess.