Chess will never be solved, here's why

Just looked at Wiki.

<<Ultra-weak
Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any moves of the perfect play.
Weak
Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game. That is, produce at least one complete ideal game (all moves start to end) with proof that each move is optimal for the player making it.
Strong
Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position, even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides.

The idea of a strong solution in that sense is nonsense. Perfect moves are those that don't relinquish the result. They might be considered to be those that stand most chance of improving a result but that doesn't make sense, since the algorithm may be playing against a similar algorithm. Equelly, if a human opponent, their effect can't be predicted. So -1 for Wiki so far.

Ther weak solution is, in effect, no different from the strong one. The ultra-weak one isn't a solution at all. Yes, it depends on the algorithmic approach that I've been consistently arguing for, against nearly everybody, but that's ineffective without moves being generated. It would have to be tested against real games, so it's really just more nonsense.

The question is, who wrote this stuff for Wiki? The moral is "don't rely on Wiki".

I'd agree you shouldn't rely on Wiki.

As for the rest, stop embarrassing yourself.

That's no good. That kind of argument is called an ad hominem. Argument against the person, because it contains no attempt to address the argument itself. The fact is, you'd do a lot better sticking to speaking to people of your ability level. I'll leave you to it.

That Wiki article was atrocious and I've seen some bad ones and some good.

You can readily dispense with the "phenomenon" aspect of this by simply rewriting the paragraph much more simply, like so:

"Lots of people don't agree with or understand the reasoning I put forth...I routinely ignore them."  

Once de-obfuscated, the underlying sentiment makes it quite easy to understand why this unfathomable phenomenon repeats itself.

*Edit:  Wow.  I wrote the above when I first read the above post snippet while catching up, then I read the rest of the posts I have missed the past day or two.  So I guess I will not reopen any cans of worms by responding directly to any more posts, but I will finish out by saying that posters that assume that anyone that disagrees with them all belong to some secret cabal, or worse, are all personas of one single poster...well, it's just a bad coping mechanism that can't really do any good for anybody involved. 

     Although the details of how to go about producing a universally accepted proof is interesting, and the personal attacks are sometimes amusing and sometimes exasperating, the inclusion of the word "never" in the original question means that we are all making completely unreasonable assumptions concerning the limits of human ingenuity. To assert that our present capabilities are the measure of the future, that computing techniques and speeds cannot increase to the point of making a seemingly-impossible task doable, or that no genius will appear with a revolutionary rethinking of methodology, seems entirely too pessimistic. Although I must admit the ever-increasing possibility that extreme climate change could disrupt our present civilization severely enough to result in its collapse may put quits to my optimism.

"the inclusion of the word "never" in the original question means that we are all making"
No it doesn't.   'we are all' doesn't follow.
Isn't it nearly always a mistake to try to speak for everybody?
People do try it.
And sometimes they get away with it - or even make the mistake 'work'.

But I think some progress has now been made - on at least two fronts.
1) the concession has now been made by somebody who's been pushing '5 years' that its not going to be 'tablebased' anytime soon.
I think its too late now - for that to be withdrawn.  Its conceded.  Finally.
Progress.
2) progress has been made on another front.  A certain 'ad hominem' phrase has been edited by a moderator.  

The 'real' discussion does go on - its 'hidden' to some extent inside a lot of other typing - but its there - every now and then.
Plus @btickler is correct.  Again.  
@MARattigan is also correct.  Again.  Subjective impositions of what 'solving' is - isn't going to get it.  

Many things still to be discussed.
There's a general unwillingness of the person most pushing a website's finding - to post here the times taken for each tablebase step from 1 to 7 pieces.
"The chain is as strong as its weakest link." 
This is often extremely true in mathematics.  
Weakest link.  
Those who choose to be lawyer-minded might do anything and everything to obfuscate the weakest link - seeing it as paramount that they do so.
They must convince the jury.  Its paramount to them.
Imperative.  
Math doesn't care about must.  Is there anything more objective than math ?
Death maybe. 

@Optimissed

Re #736

It wasn't intended as an ad hominem attack; rather as friendly advice.

Your post made it crystal clear that you don't even know what the question you've been discussing at such length means.

Since I know that the impression you make on other posters is your principal concern in posting, I thought I should suggest that you shut the f*** up before you made an even bigger ars*h*le of yourself. 

I thought it might embarrass you less if I left it at that.  

But anyway.

The idea of a strong solution in that sense is nonsense.

See the sequel.

Perfect moves are those that don't relinquish the result.

Correct so far.

They might be considered to be those that stand most chance of improving a result

They might, but that doesn't correspond with the definition of perfect move in the Wikipedia article. You would have known this had you read it and understood it (or if you had read and understood my correction to your definition of perfect move earlier in the thread).

but that doesn't make sense, since the algorithm may be playing against a similar algorithm. Equelly, if a human opponent, their effect can't be predicted. So -1 for Wiki so far.

If the algorithm produces perfect play from a position that is winning for one player it will enforce a loss for the other whatever moves he makes (even if these are according to the same algorithm). If it produces perfect play from a drawn position it will not lose if the other side employs the same algorithm.  

The Wikipedia definition of strong solution makes perfect sense for competition rules chess. It is inadequate for basic rules chess because, in requiring only perfect moves, not perfect play. It would allow algorithms that don't win from winning positions as strong solutions (see earlier posts).

But in that instance it's wrong not because of the reason you give.

Ther weak solution is, in effect, no different from the strong one. 

If you look at this position 

Many sources will give you a perfect (and perfectly accurate) account of how to mate as White from that position.

If you consider a version of chess restricted to the material shown, with a starting position as shown, these constitute a weak solution.

It's a mate in 20.

The longest mates in the endgame are 33 moves. These positions can all be reached from the position shown by imperfect play, but clearly the weak solution doesn't contain these positions because all the positions reached will be mates in 20 or less. A strong solution must  produce an optimal solution (not necessarily a win) from any position that can be reached from the position shown.

The ultra-weak one isn't a solution at all.

You don't get to know the moves, but it's enough to answer @ponz111's question, "Chess is a draw with best play, true or false?", for example.

In fact it's more than enough. Ponz's question is asking for what I might call an ultra-ulltra-weak solution in that if it's a win you don't need to say for which player.

It turned out that he really wanted an ultra-ultra-ultra-weak solution where you need only say chess is a draw.

...

Would you use two toddlers who play chess but can never checkmate each other as a proof that checkmate isn't possible in the game of chess?  Because that's the same mistake you are making by trying to use Stockfish or any other engine to guarantee perfect positional evaluations all the way until the tablebase.

All you are essentially attempting to prove is that Stockfish considers chess a draw...which is irrelevant since Stockfish improves measurably with every release...an indisputable proof that Stockfish cannot be relied upon to evaluate perfect play (except for the actual tablebase lookup positions, of course).  

I already told you I think the Wiki article's poor. Why should I suddenly want my ideas to coincide with it? It's mixed up and unfocussed, for reasons I gave and more.

It appears to me that there's no real and meaningful difference between the definitions of "weak" and "strong" The entire distinction in any case rests on foresight, which is assumptive. The "ultra-weak" is complete pie in the sky and the whole thing's a train wreck. You probably wrote it yourself.

The difference between weak and strong solutions for games is pretty clearly defined.  If you cannot understand the difference between the ability to guarantee/prove perfect play from the starting the position vs. being able to guarantee/prove perfect play from any position, then you cannot understand the difference between standard chess and Chess960, for example. 

It's kind of ironic, because a strong solution for chess is more likely by "cracking" the rules and proving the absolute value of pieces and positional considerations, rather than by brute force calculation...and since the former is your own professed position for the best way to solve chess...

The Wikipedia article (you cannot refer to Wikipedia as just "wiki", since there are innumerable Wiki's out there) is correct, but written at a high level without diving into a lot of specifics...which is what encyclopedia entries are for .

@btickler right yet again !  
Five years from now - supercomputers will be 'faster' than they are now.
Its something that constantly progresses.
Supercomputers evolve.  Something like laptops and desktops and phones do.
And upon that progress - some will be filled with much hope and again proclaim chess will be 'solved' in five years!
the wording of the thread topic is perhaps unfortunate - 
'never' is somewhat inappropriate?
It invites backlash.  But maybe in a constructive way.
Chess 'could' be solved.  But when?  Where?
Here on earth?  Only if society survives that long.  Millions of years.
Somebody already conceded - appearing to even suggest that the tablebases will never get to '32 pieces'.
I don't think its 'never'.  But maybe millions of years.  Or even billions of years.
But that could be revised as processing speeds increase and number of computers running in parallel for the task increases.
As for 'programming'  that can get misinterpreted.
Programming shouldn't mean imposition of subjective opinions about what 'solving' is.
Programming should mean better programs for tablebases.
To proceed faster. And while maintaining objectivity - not increasing subjectivity.
Issue:  subjectivity and perceived subjectivity are usually what people care about.  Usually - rightly so.  Usually.

Not in fact, I would say. @tygxc's proposal is not tablebasing.

Tablebasing could take longer on current technology and you don't have the space anyway. 

But I think in either case the human race might have evolved enough to find chess trivial before @tygxc's computation could complete on Summit machines (if indeed it could) and even before that people might be able to ask Siri to do it on their wristwatch. 

@MARattigan
I'm not referring to his 'proposal'.
I'm referring to his concessions.

"Tablebasing could take longer on current technology and you don't have the space anyway."
Of course tablebasing takes 'longer'.  Suggestion - this is what the topic is really about.  If tablebasing didn't take 'longer' - would this forum even exist ?

Care to define what 'the space' refers to ? 

Nalimov 3-5 man DTM tables on my desktop 7GB. Lomonosov 3-7 man tables (wherever they put them) 140TB. Continue the progression. 

My late brother edited thousands of Wiki articles and tried to get me involved, but I didn't want that. There are too many people with too little understanding of the subjects they write on but sure they're right, just as you are.

There are serious, logical problems with the definitions in that article. It also has zero practical value. It looks as if it could have been written by a university lecturer, to get his students thinking. No, it's a jumbled mess and it's amusing that you can't see it.

So am I. He conceded only that tablebasing might need an extra desktop and cleaning woman. He conceded nothing in respect of his own proposal that I've seen.

The weak solution is meant to contain less variations because variations with inaccurate play are excluded. Conversely, the strong solution includes positions arising after game-losing errors by either side.

Firstly. it's obvious that the first priority in "solving chess" is to try to identify the best moves, which should lead to drawn positions if played by both sides. So that's the so-called weak solution. But of course, before chess is "solved" it's impossible to know whether a line contains an error or not. This means that the entire distinction between weak and strong is a pseudo-distinction: ultimately pointless and meaningless.

I'm pretty sure the article is taken from something written as a bit of a joke, to get students thinking, as happens also in philosophy and also probably in law.

No. It's just to identify the best moves. (Assuming you mean perfect play.)

I think he conceded well beyond that.
We could argue forever about 'what was said' and get nowhere.
I'm suggesting to you he's dismissed for himself publically tablebased solving of all chess positions.
That's a Huge concession.
The only thing that could maybe reverse it - is if he deletes all his posts so conceding.
But then - that still wouldn't be over.