Chess will never be solved, here's why

Getting three things right in a row is amazing.

Suggesting that Prof. van den Herik had not had his morning coffee when he included your quoted definitions in his paper is hardly saying he doesn't know about game theory. He is in fact eminent in that sphere.

Similarly suggesting that Sveshnikov had taken something stronger than coffee when he made the remarks you quote does not detract from his abilities in analysing chess at a practical level. He was reputed to have a considerable talent for that.

We can agree on your last point.  

Seriously, for the nth time solving chess is not about Theory of Games and has no connection with it except for a tenuous one. That is, Game Theory can conceivably be used to work out strategies for solving the problem of how to solve chess. That may, in fact, be where the complete confusion has arisen. If he hadn't used the word "strategy" to refer to the selection of moves, then he wouldn't have confused himself so badly and confused you, Elroch, tygxc and others, too. That's very likely to be the reason why he's believed by certain people who think, quite wrongly, that solving chess is about game theory. Unless and until you can address the question of where Games Theory might come in, you'll all, collectively and individually, continue to be misled. It ought to be absolutely clear that Herik was confused, since you yourself admitted to being "nonplussed" by his wording. 

I've told you what Games Theory is, several times. The Wiki definition of it is, by chance, broadly correct. Why don't you tell me, in your own words, what Theory of Games is and why you think it's applicable to solving chess. It may be that you will come up with a reason, possibly along the lines of my suggestion.

I'm just trying to help you out. Game Theory is of the nature of a paper algorithm that scores events. Naturally all such scores are approximations and guesses. Therefore, game theory cannot possibly provide the accuracy that is required for a solution of chess.

https://www.ctan.org/pkg/skaknew 

I mostly use exactly the same for figurines (white for White's moves and black for Black's.)

I just looked him up. He certainly spreads his abilities thinly and "Game Theory" looks like it's added to the long list of subjects on which he claims expertise as an afterthought. Also, you seem not to understand that within academia, it's quite normal for there to be disagreements. You act as if it's unheard of to criticise an academic.

He makes incorrect alterations to someone's PhD thesis which you say "nonplussed" you and which I think were just plain wrong and yet he's not even remotely incorrect to do so. He hasn't a clue how Games Theory fits into solving chess and so he uses words like "strategy" wrongly and he's still not wrong.

In order for you to be taken seriously, you had better answer my question regarding where Games Theory fits in, in your opinion. Because unless you do, it is going to remain very clear to me that you're trolling. The one or two good comments which you've made don't change your nature. It is becoming plain that no-one commenting here and criticising my ideas knows what they're talking about.

yes, i hope so only one way to find out

OK what is it to be a slave?

Thank you very much

Please post any solid refutation of "The Bishop's?"

As it is demonstrated on this thread.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-boden-kieseritzky-gambit-is-best-by-test

to have a bond with someone, with emotions like affection and trust, trust being super underrated and undercreditted with how intense and important it can be.  and to be highly influenced by that persons actions and ways of living.

@7740

"Chess will be solved eventually."
++ Perhaps. 5 years and 3 million $ is a huge obstacle.

uve got your math wrong somewhere.  they have already spent over a dozen times that in terms of time and money.  

@7762

Stockfish has already been developed, the 7-men endgame table base is already completed, databases with games already are available.

3 grandmasters * 100,000 $/grandmaster/year * 5 years = 1,500,000 $
3 cloud engines 10^9 nodes/s during 5 years =                  1,500,000 $
__________________________________________________________________________

Total                                                                                       3,000,000 $

the "3 cloud engines 10^9 nodes/s during 5 years " is where you  have got it wrong.  there is no reliable source that puts chess even close to that level of complexity.  lowest I can find is ~10^30

@7764

I estimate 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s as 3000 desktops of 500 $ each,
written off in 5 years hence 3000 * 500 $ = 1,500,000 $.

To weakly solve chess you need only find 1 move for black to draw against whatever reasonable moves white tries. Hence Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.

3 cloud engines calculate in 5 years:

10^9 nodes/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 5 * 10^17 nodes.

It really depends on how you define the parameters of "solved". Either practical or theoretical. There will be a point where the game will be vastly different depending on the mode.

With time controls, playing unconventional yet viable lines or even other modes like Fischer Random are all possibilities imo. 

@7766

"It really depends on how you define the parameters of solved". 
++ Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and
strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.
The game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally.
We are talking about weakly solved here.

No it isn't. If it were true, it would be a tiny obstacle and well within the budget of a higher education establishment. That's just an excuse because $3m and 5 years is a pinprick. $3m doesn't start to cover it, as I explained several hundred posts ago when I costed it more accurately.

You won't listen to proper arguments and you only wish to spam for the Stupid Party, of which you seem to be Propaganda Minister. Also 5 years is impossible.