Chess will never be solved, here's why

algorithm
/ˈalɡərɪð(ə)m/
 Learn to pronounce
 
noun
 
a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.

No, your words (penultimate post) are not what an algorithm is. Compare it to a good definition (or the wikipedia article).

For example, Euclid's algorithm is a systematic procedure for finding the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers. He proved it worked using logic, executed it manually and in recent times it is implemented as computer code to do the same thing.

Another algorithm would be one to generate a tablebase for chess.

There are simple algorithms to play perfect chess as well. Unfortunately they require either stupendous time or stupendous precalculated data (such as a 32-piece tablebase).

<<<It cannot, because the models used in ToG do not need to be exact.

With all due respect, you are getting confused again, presumably by repeating the mistake of thinking the applications of parts of Game Theory distinct from Combinatorial Game Theory are relevant to chess.>>>


I'm saying they are not relevant to chess. I have been all along. You are suggesting that "Combinatorial Game Theory" is relevant to chess and the other varieties aren't. I don't doubt that for a moment but as soon as "chess" as a game becomes "solving chess", that relevance is altered somewhat. They're different things. Solving chess is a very different process from playing chess.

I appreciate that you made a genuine error. It's very easy to be tempted, when you believe someone is talking rubbish, to be lazy, because one might ask what is the point of not being lazy to refute the ideas of someone you believe is wrong. Also you have direct knowledge of many mathematical applications and I have few. I shoot off my mouth because I know I'm clever. Not because I know I'm always right, which I'm not. I do however enjoy speaking with competent people who advance good arguments rather than the bits and pieces we have here. Thanks for allowing me to see where our differences, real and imagined, actually are. I appreciate that you took the trouble to offer an explanation. Yours seemed to be the second comment from an intelligent person, after that by one other person beginning "come on man".

optimissed chess can literally be defined by that type of game theory wdym.  chess is deterministic with both players having complete information.

I wish you could understand the proper sequence of discussions. Also don't assume that a simplified discussion is a fuller one. Your discussion loses relevance when you take things out of context because you really like it when people think you're "winning a discussion". Learn to understand that others can prefer or use different words and all it indicates is a different perspective at most.

Also I know very well what the game is with MAR. Don't be like him. It happens through bitterness. Why else would he spend years having an argument with someone he just claimed is the stupidest person on Chess.com even including me. I'm far more qualified than he is to assess who is stupid and neither tygxc or MAR are stupid. They are both obsessive and MAR is a troll whereas tygxc is not and the reasons for his beliefs are not due to stupidity at all.

@7849

Coming back to the weak solution of Checkers and the image.

Checkers has 24 men on 32 squares, Chess has 32 on 64 squares.
Schaeffer used Chinook and a 10-men endgame table base,
for Chess Stockfish and a 7-men endgame table base are available.
Checkers is most complicated with 23 men, Chess with 26 men.
For Chess the ICCF Finals draws can be used as seeded lines.
Just like Checkers: stored boundary < relevant search space < legal search space

"For Chess the ICCF Finals draws can be used as seeded lines."

not necessarily.  there is no proof that that is the line.

@8042

There is statistical proof that ICCF WC Finals draws are > 99% certain to be perfect games with optimal play from both sides. They also represent 2 years of play with engines piloted by ICCF (grand)masters. So at least these games are suitable as seeded lines.

If one of these falls under the < 1% cases with 2 errors that undo each other, then that will become apparent during the solving process: then there will appear some line that does not end in a 7-men endgame table base draw.

It will be solved by some over powered AI

"If one of these falls under the < 1% cases with 2 errors that undo each other, then that will become apparent during the solving process: then there will appear some line that does not end in a 7-men endgame table base draw."

, yes, and there are10^17 possible lines, taking up 10^17 positions each.  

your explanation of what weakly solving chess isnt far off from how it would be done.  however, you dont really know what that entails.  at best only a couple orders of magnitude can be confidently reduced.

@8045

"there are10^17 possible lines, taking up 10^17 positions each"
++ No, there are 10^17 relevant positions in total. The whole tree has 10^17 nodes: either branching points or leaflets.

yeah, 10^17 in the final tree.  but you have to find that tree first.

@8047

"you have to find that tree first"
++ Yes: for black play the top 1 Stockfish move after 17 s calculation on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, for white explore the top w (e.g. w = 4) Stockfish moves.

Let us take an example with this ICCF game as seeded line.
1 e4. Grandmaster E with cloud engine e will work on this.
Grandmaster D with cloud engine d will work on 1 d4.
Grandmaster C with cloud engine c will work on other first moves that do not transpose, notably 1 c4 and 1 Nf3.
Grandmaster E and cloud engine e will never have to look at any position with a white pawn on e2, shrinking the search space.
1...e5. Grandmaster E selects this. It is probably that 1...c5 draws as well and 1...e6 and/or 1...c6 might draw as well, but a weak solution only calls for one strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw.
From now on no positions with a black pawn on e7 are relevant. This shrinks the search space.
2 Nf3. Grandmaster E will study alternatives 2 Nc3, d4, Bc4 later with other seeded games if they do not transpose. There is no need to investigate 2 Ba6?
2...Nc6. Grandmaster E selects this. It is probable that 2...Nf6 draws as well, maybe even 2...d6 draws, but a weak solution only calls for 1 strategy to achieve the draw.
3 Bb5. Grandmaster E will study alternatives 3 Bc4, 3 d4, 3 Nc3 later if they do not transpose. There is no need to investigate 3 Ba6, Nd4, Nxe5, Ng5, Nh4, or Ng1.
3...Nf6. Grandmaster E selects this.
It is probable that 3...a6 draws as well, but a weak solution only calls for 1 strategy to draw.
4 O-O. Grandmaster E will study alternatives 4 d3, d4, Qe2 with other seeded games. From now on no positions with white castling rights need to be considered. That shrinks the search space.
4...Nxe4. Grandmaster E selects this. It is possible that 4...d6 draws as well, but a weak solution only calls for 1 strategy to draw.
From now on no positions with 32 men are relevant. That shrinks the search space.
5 d4. Grandmaster E will study alternatives 5 Re1, Qe2 with other seeded games.
From now on no positions with a white pawn on d2 are relevant. That shrinks the search space.
5...Nd6. Grandmaster E selects this. Other moves might draw, but only 1 way to draw is needed.
6 Bxc6 Grandmaster E will study alternatives 6 dxe5, Bg5, Ba4 with other seeded games.
From now on no positions with 31 men are relevant. That shrinks the search space.
6...dxc6. Grandmaster E selects this. No need to consider 6...bxc6: only 1 way to draw needed.
From now on no positions with 30 men are relevant. That shrinks the search space.
7 dxe5 There are no valid alternatives to consider.
From now on no 29-men positions are relevant. That shrinks the search space.
7...Nf5 Grandmaster E selects this. Only 1 way to draw needed.
8 Qxd8+. Grandmaster E will investigate alternative 8 Qe2 with other seeded games.
From now on positions with 28 men are no longer relevant. That shrinks the search space.
8...Kxd8. Only legal move. From now on postions with 27 men or with black castling rights are no longer relevant. That shrinks the search space.
Now that 26 men are reached, grandmaster E may decide to launch his engine e.
9 h3. Engine e investigates alternatives from its top w moves (e.g. w = 4) after 17 s of calculation at 10^9 nodes/s.
9...Be7. Engine e takes the move from the seeded game.
If it leads to a 7-men endgame table base, then it is right in retrospect.
10 Nc3. Engine e investigates alternatives from its top w moves (e.g. w = 4) after 17 s of calculation at 10^9 nodes/s.
10...Nh4 Engine e takes the move from the seeded game.
If it leads to a 7-men endgame table base, then it is right in retrospect.
11 Nxh4 Engine e will investigate alternatives from its top w moves (e.g. w = 4) after 17 s of calculation at 10^9 nodes/s.
After this move positions with 26 men are no longer relevant. That shrinks the search space.
11...Bxh4 Engine e takes the move from the seeded game. If it leads to a 7-men endgame table base, then it is right in retrospect.
After this positions with 25 men are no longer relevant. That shrinks the search space.
12 Be3 Engine e will investigate alternatives from its top w moves (e.g. w = 4) after 17 s of calculation at 10^9 nodes/s.
12...h5 Engine e takes the move from the seeded game. If it leads to a 7-men endgame table base, then it is right in retrospect. After this positions with a black pawn on h7 are no longer relevant. That shrinks the search space.
etc. ...
57 Bxa1 Engine e investigates alternatives from its top w moves (e.g. w = 4) after 17 s of calculation at 10^9 nodes/s. 

that doesnt work lmao.  you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a  false assumption

yes i saw i could have taken that if i would have stopped for a nanosecond, but who gives a f i won anyway

"1... e5 Grandmaster E selects this. It is probably that 1...c5 draws as well and 1...e6 and/or 1...c6 might draw as well, but a weak solution only calls for one strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw.
From now on no positions with a black pawn on e7 are relevant. This shrinks the search space."

"7...Nf5 Grandmaster E selects this. Only 1 way to draw needed."

yeah but you havent ruled out that black could be playing to win.

you have to search every single one and prove a draw/win for each black move.

your use of grandmasters is also redundant, because a computer can select moves better than any grandmaster could.

you also still assume that black is playing to draw and not win.

I hope i could play so magically and skillfully next time