Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

In other news, the Chinese national table tennis team has solved table tennis.

Reliable in principle, utterly impossible to do thoroughly in practice!

@10294

Just one example of perfect play: 38 moves, starts from the initial position,
ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw.

https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360155

Another crackpot reveals themselves...

I wonder for how Few pieces the tablebases have actually solved for !
Even to 'solve' for how many possible positions (not whether they're wins or not) with just two Kings and one piece or pawn on the board - isn't that straightforward for a human being.
Its going to take you some time to allow for the fact that the Kings can't be adjacent and that either or both Kings might take a square or two from a pawn of either color.
But if you've taken care of that - all such positions of three men are legal apparently.
Not so with four. Which would start to get really involved for a human.
Could take quite a while.
Hours and hours perhaps just to calculate the number of the total possible legal positions.
Let alone solve them.
Some positions are illegal because there was no legal means to get there.
But it may take a lot of men for that.
Still - the computers will have to check for that too ...

I don't accept friend requests unless I have seen you posting for years and think we have something in common. Don't bother trying to send one if we have not directly interacted. Ditto for challenges and club invites. I also don't accept any "forum rage" game challenges, ever. Your arguments will just have to stand on their merit

Yes, many people who also don't believe in the moon landings (and lots of other stuff) have tried to interact with me over the years. So, on occasion I have had to deal with repeated PMs, friendship requests, game challenges, etc. from crackpots that don't like having their submarines torpedoed and sunk.

There are reflectors installed on the moon surface that you can use to prove to yourself that the moon landings occurred. But you won't, because crackpots don't actually want to know the truth about things.

Reflectors installed on the moon? holly wood! Lol

What do you plan to come up with next?

The earth is flat?