Chess will never be solved, here's why

@9589

"'weakly solved' ... what is that like?"
++ Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
Games solved: Now and in the future

Likewise Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers: it is a draw.

Now for Chess for the initial position a strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw against any opposition is to follow an ICCF World Championship Finals draw for as long as possible and then proceed with an ICCF (grand)master and an engine at 5 days/move.

From many of your posts I have determined that you don't understand what weakly solved means.

It is necessary to deal with ALL LEGAL RESPONSES to a specific strategy, not just "several" responses.

O: "T, you haven't proven the twin prime conjecture"

T: "You haven't disproved it, therefore I have proven it"

[Same reasoning as part of the discussion above].

@Elroch
Yes - we're having a sarcasm-fest.

I'm posting this video about stalemate ...
yes it might not be relevant even at all.
If not - mea culpa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFykCZ4I34 might put a 'wrensch' in things ...

"The remainder descended further still into personalised dribble. Did you come here to show off your accomplishments? Is so it would have been better had you not behaved like a troll in your own threads for years by attacking those disagreeing with you. You are not an exceptionally intelligent person and no-one need take you the slightest bit seriously at all, except maybe those who feed off you. You are VERY much out of your league and I think sometimes that realisation dawns on you."

The 'O' guy talking about himself again while trying to pretend its about somebody else.
He winds up being 'below' everyone else's 'league'.
His unhappy masochism and 'little thunder'.
He's still foolishly furious that Elroch blocked him.
Dio also blocked him too. Long time ago.
He'll get his 'little anger' up about that too.
He's in his cycle ...

"It is not only possible to represent chess mathematically, it is easy and it is extremely well-known that chess is a well-defined example of a finite combinatorial game of perfect information"
Elroch is correct.
I was suggesting something similiar.
Chess is close enough to mathematics including mathematics referring to itself.
'Perfect' information.
Absolutely. Perfectly.
But 'solving' is something else again.
The game is Big. Mathematically Big.
Too Big. When you're talking about 'solving' in a total sense.
--------------------------
There are problems in Mechanics that are very difficult to solve perfectly.
Even with 'perfect' information to start.
Like for example four 'perfect' equal masses interacting gravitationally in three dimensions where you know their mass - radius - starting 3d coordinates - starting velocity (which is more than 'speed' - includes the 3d vector) - perfect vaccuum - no other influences .... can the future positions of the four masses be calculated at the end of time t?
if they were approaching each other in 2d at perfect right angles to each other - probably.
But not the case in the exercise where they're coming in obliquely to each other ... no neat angles and in three dimensions. No 'coplanar'.
Can you 'solve' for time t?
Can you calculate if any will collide with each other in the first 'pass'?
Or will they pass each other and then move away?
Or be drawn back in?
Point: even with 'perfect information' I think you'd find that many of these can't be solved.
Elroch probably knows a great deal about that exercise - maybe even computers making 'extrapolations'.
Even with just two masses approaching each other obliquely -'aiming' above and below each other - the lines defining their trajectories are not straight lines - they're 3d curves. Tough!
Each curve would not fit in any plane.
---------------------------------
'the guy' mainly personalizes. 'His son.' 'You'. 'IQ'. 'League'. His obvious narcissism. He doesn't really discuss it.

There are many things that might never be 'solved'.
Some will say 'never say never'.
Some things can be proven to have no solution ...
like 'solve for the greatest prime number' ...
there isn't one.
But it is known how many seconds there are in a hundred year lifespan.
There is a first upper bound on the number of possible chess positions.
Its 13 to the 64th power.
That can be cut down some - but not enough ...
at the end - there's too many positions left and too much time to solve each of them.
And starting from 'the end' with two kings and adding - doesn't work either because the task gets too daunting even after adding a ninth piece to the board.
Maybe they have calculated or extrapolated how long it will take the computers to solve for all positions with nine pieces.
There's probably a graph - displaying how the needed total solution time increases with the addition of any of ten types of piece.
Say they can solve for nine pieces in ten years from now ...
does that mean it'll take 100 years when they add that tenth piece?
If there's a tenfold time increase with each addition of a piece ...
but maybe that goes up too.

tygxc and Elroch do a lot better than 'O'.
But almost everybody does.
'O' is foolishly sensitive and insecure.
Imagines and craves authority he'll never have.
It means he always loses. Every time.

the best argument is a logical one not me bully opponent with a poem if your going to insult people being foolish back doesnt help

yes I'm fully aware that you probably will start insulting me to but I'd rather take the hit than @ Optimissed

A false claim.

I gave the actual definition of Weakly Solved. I don't really care what Herik says.

Your "game theoretic value" hedge is just there to allow you to pretend that a draw is the default result and that a forced win would be an aberration.

The only explanation of making a statement that is simply wrong is that you are using that technical phrase without having learnt what it means.

If you take the time to learn what the phrase means, you will discover that for chess it means that both players are fully aware of the moves that have been played so far (and which determine precisely what legal continuations are possible).

There's a difference between default and probable value. It's fine to say that chess being a draw is more likely. It is incorrect to say that a draw is the "correct" result and that a forced win would be an unexpected and suspect surprise. If a set of forced wins exist, they will be necessarily narrow and probably dependent on some heretofore undiscovered truths about chess in terms of positional play, much like when Alpha Zero wowed all the super-GMs with some fancy bishop tactics, etc.

Tygxc's premise is that even though machine learning engines just hit the scene (and engines only just surpassed humans circa 2006), that the possibilities of chess have been exhausted, ergo all draws, ergo chess itself being a draw. This is no different than the best players in 1900 saying the same thing. Chess is not exhausted, and we've only played some infinitesimal percentage of possible games. What has happened is that engines have reached a plateau for the moment, and humans are no longer capable of helping out. We're obsolete.

If anyone besides Tygxc actually believes that engines 10, or 20, or 50+ years from now will not be capable enough to beat today's ICCF "centaurs" (more like hydras now, given the number of engines being used together), go ahead and speak up...

It's an interesting question how badly they will be able to beat them!

Your premise that is that you are capable of understanding any information given to you. Reams of evidence on these forums would show this to be demonstrably false. Don't feel bad, though...it's false for any and all human beings.

I don't think that's entirely true I think people try to understand they just don't do a very good job of it