Chess will never be solved, here's why

If it can be used for the social sciences, it's exactly what I supposed. I'm just showing Elroch was wrong, writing
"Guesswork has no place in the entire body of knowledge of game theory."

Elroch has a long history of pompous dismissals of arguments which were actually correct, without giving any counter-arguments.

More projection.  There's nobody on this website your sentence applies to more than yourself. 

It shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of @Optimissed to understand that the only part of the broad subject of Game Theory that is relevant to chess is Combinatorial Game Theory. While the other parts involve rigorous analysis of abstractions (in the way I referred to earlier), combinatorial game theory is intuitively simpler to comprehend.

Doesn't have to be. I was just showing that Elroch is wrong. He said that estimates have no place in games theory. They're actually the basis of it and successive approximations is often used to improve models. You're siding with the ones that can't think.

It happens to be a fact that other parts of Game Theory, such as those studied by Nash, find more real world applications. The real world is full of the complications absent from classic games like chess (and dealt with by combinatorial game theory).=:

1. more than two players
2. imperfect information
3. non-sequential actions

and others that don't immediately spring  to mind.

I suggest you learn about how game theory is used in the social sciences as well as in determining strategies for complex interactions between agents.

How about this?

Looks like a Win for White.

Now what happens if you replace the missing Pawns?

Then who wins?

And then you can talk about it on a different thread, because it's nothing to do with this one.

I know by now that you have dementia but I will explain once more. The discussion is about the nature of Theory of Games, which some people still insist has some connexion to solving chess.

It cannot, because the models used in ToG do not need to be exact. It is however to do with models and as we know, models are no use in solving chess either. Basically, an algorithm is a model and so far they aren't reliable.

I don't see the win in the position you posted. Can you post one against Stockfish? (Any version from 8.)

The discussion is on the topic "Chess will never be solved, here's why".

To those of us with dementia only combinatorial game theory is relevant to the topic.

Those who have gone beyond dementia think their mother in law and the social sciences are relevant and any old junk like, "Basically, an algorithm is a model ..." (really?), will pass as rational debate.

I also looked at it and thought it was drawn.

It would be false to claim an obvious forced win for white. 

I would believe 1. e4 is best, but black has options like 1. ...g6 (to avoid the hassle of Qh5+, since 1. ...Nf6 2. e5 is suspect (but even that doesn't look a clear forced win).

Stockfish believes 1. e4 Nc6 is the best response (to stop Qe5 after Qh5+ g6, I presume) and its evaluation makes it most likely a draw.

Looks like I'm right. If you don't understand that an algorithm is a model when it is intended do model reality in the way that assessing a chess position does, and you were once intelligent, something has gone very wrong.

In my own words, quickly, an algorithm is intended to logically manipulate data to find an outcome. It does so by roughly modelling the processes that work "in reality".

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.