Chess will never be solved, here's why

@10153

"the comparable tablebase for chess (say a 16 piece one) won't be possible to create in the foreseeable future"
++ Work on the 8-men endgame tablebase is in progress. However, that is not necessary.

The ICCF World Championship Finals games end in draws when they reach the 7-men endgame tablebase, or a prior 3-fold repetition, or a human agreement e.g. in case of an opposite colored bishop endgame neither player has hope to win.

Sorry for off topic but some of these conversations seem like from a fever dream. Sort of like mass psychosis.

Yes there is an objectively best line in chess and there should be regardless of what happens

But saying that is useless for us because we can't figure out anything practical from knowing that

Let alone in the real world

LEARN YOUR SPELING TOO!

"10^7 nodes/second/engine * 16 engines/grandmaster * 17 grandmasters * 3600 seconds/hour * 24 hours/day * 365.25 days/year * 2 years = 1.7 * 10^17 positions"

and there it is. your famous calculation error.

a node isnt a full chess position evaluated.

the 10 million nodes you cite are to evaluate a SINGLE position.

so by your math, we have 20 million years to go.

"Even if the distribution of errors (?) per game is 105-0-1 as per Elroch instead of 106-0-0,
i.e. if in one branch a pair of errors (?) were found that undo each other,
then still the other branch is available as a back-up to draw.

Their result is exhaustive."

by definition thats not exhaustive

tygxc reminds me of terence howard and his "proof" that 1 x 1 = 2

It might happen with this new nuclear powered space craft China's planning to build.

A node is a position, but only with a very superficial evaluation. The permanent problem with @tygxc's ideas is that there are no reliable evaluations, just chess players' "good enough to probably be right" evaluations. 1.7x10^17 nodes is laughably inadequate to solve chess. It is for example, only adequate to search 38.5 full moves where there are just 2 non-transposing choices examined per move!

More relevant to a proper analysis, this is the same number of moves with one side only looking at one choice and the other at only four choices. Both the depth and the number of choices are farcically inadequate.

yeah he claims that each node has 95-99% accuracy, when the paper he cites for it actually attributes the 95-99% accuracy to the entire engine that uses the nodes at about 1 move per second/minute.

@10281

"A node is a position, but only with a very superficial evaluation." ++ Yes.

"there are no reliable evaluations" ++ There are: at the end of the game it is draw/win/loss per the 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition. That is the objective and correct evaluation. The intermediate, provisional computer evaluations +0.33 etc. play no role at all:
the game goes on until a final, objective, and certain evaluation draw/win/loss is reached.

"It is for example, only adequate to search 38.5 full moves where there are just 2 non-transposing choices examined per move" ++ Coincidence: the average game length of the ICCF World Championship Finals is 39 moves with standard deviation 11.

"one side only looking at one choice and the other at only four choices"
++ That makes sense, e.g. 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 Nf3, 1 c4 for white in the initial position,
though 1 c4 was not played so far and 1 Nf3 mostly transposed, that leaves 1 e4 and 1 d4.
Likewise after 1 e4: 1...e5, 1...c5, 1...e6, 1...c6.
1...c6 was not played, and 1...e6 only twice, that leaves 1...e5 and 1...c5.
Likewise after 1 d4 only 1...Nf6 and 1...d5 were played.
So one side only looking at one choice and the other at only two choices is realistic.

@10268

"the French was a draw based on 2 games"
++ Aleksandrov played it twice:
interesting enough one Steinitz Variation 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 against Terreaux,
and one Winawer Variation 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 against Haugen, both draws.
He has still an ongoing black game, maybe another French.

It cannot be excluded that e.g. 1...e6 is a mistake, and that 3 e5 is a white win,
though in the expert opinion of Aleksandrov 1...e6 is fit to draw, with 3...Nf6 as well as 3...Bb4,
and in the expert opinions of both Terreaux and Haugen 3 Nc3 is white's best chance.

Speaking of chance, Blaise Pascal founded probability theory for betting.
Given that 106 ICCF WC Finals games ended in draws, and 30 are ongoing,
what odds would you bet that at least one of the 30 ongoing games ends decisively?

Uhum

Have humans walked on Moon? No.

Will human walk on Mars? No.

Is chess s a draw? Yes.

Folks also please note that tygxc has already conceded that humanity doesn't have the technology to solve chess.
He very eagerly wanted to qualify it - but fact is he's already conceded.
So suggestion:
Give him credit for that.

"there are no reliable evaluations" ++ There are: at the end of the game it is draw/win/loss per the 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition. "

solving all the way to the 7man is by definition unreliable LMFAO

@10287

"humanity doesn't have the technology to solve chess"
++ Strongly solving Chess i.e. a 32-men table base of 10^44 positions is beyond present technology.
Weakly solving Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers is viable.
The ICCF World Championship Finals is now there: 106 perfect games, all draws.

That was funny.
I posted that I couldn't find his conceding post and then suddenly he reposted to that effect and his post appeared Above mine.
Hahahaahah.

'doesn't have the technology' ...
are the four key words there.
tygxc might try to dress that up.
But its now quoted - harder to 'misplace'.
So everybody 'exasperated' with tygxc can refer to his four words there.
I already had chosen not to be anyway.
Even solving for ten pieces appears to be well beyond current technology.
Because there's already a multiplier of over 25,000 on the number of positions to be processed - compared with 8 pieces.
Getting from 7 to eight pieces took over a year?
Then its going to take over 25,000 years just to get to 10 ...
that's right.
The sun won't burn out in that time.
The Mets will be able to play their day games without lights ...
But they might have to move the stadium ...
water levels rising you know ...

take this junk to debate.com. Somebody gonna say the same thing.