Chess will never be solved, here's why

A chess strategy is a decision process that suffices for all positions that can arise against any opposing play. i.e. it picks a move in every position that can arise when applying it.

I hope seeing the definition helps you.

And also, as I said, it isn't formally proven. It is just intuitively correct to me, as I made very clear.

It helps me as much as any other drivel.
Who is the fool who invented that?
It simply describes "a good move".

@8072

"a strategy-stealing strategy for white. It would need to cover EVERY black response."
++ It is up to those that put forward chess being a black win as a plausible hypothesis to come up with evidence supporting that claim. For example 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 being a black win. Then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 is a white win.
Whatever possible black wins the proponents of the black wins hypothesis come up with,
there is a corresponding strategy stealing by white that disproves it.
It is up to the proponents of black wins to come up with plausible black strategies.
Then the strategy stealing reduces those hypotheses ad absurdum.

So you think a winning strategy for checkers is "a good move". It is a shame you did not publish this before several years of computation was done.

The terminology I use is that a good move is any move which doesn't change the game state. That's absolutely accurate and non-confusing. No move can produce a winning strategy in chess. All it can do is not convert the game into a loss or not throw away a win after a bad move was made by the opponent.

Get your head round the terminology I use and it will aid you to think clearly.

There is no strategy stealing argument for chess, as authoritative works explain. 

It isn't an explanation which is required, but a formal proof. Otherwise, the authoritative works have zero authority. In any case, this compulsive argument for the necessity of a formal proof for everything is not about knowledge. It is about living in a make believe world.

I don't even call it strategy stealing. That is someone else's terminology, as you very well know. However, within the myriad of permutations of chess moves which hypothetically exist, the idea that there is a winning strategy for black; and in this case I'm correctly calling it a strategy; seems ludicrous, due to the apparently obvious fact that white can always lose a move. And if black can lose yet another move, so can white. You would require a formal proof to prove that it is impossible. Not the other way round, because intuitively and according to common sense it's correct. Where's the formal proof that it's incorrect?

Having looked at the link, that link is not about chess. It's about another game called Hex and therefore is irrelevant to this conversation. There would need to be a proof that the paper is correct, IF it claims to present a formal proof AND a proof that the claim is transferable to chess.

However, I read the paper as far as "he just plays anywhere and then continues with the strategy" and that is obviously not applicable to chess, where double or single pawn moves may be made. The idea that black can win is foolish nonsense and a proof is necessary that white couldn't circumvent it.

From your response, I think you don't understand the logic. I agree it may seem difficult because it's rather abstract. tygxc's explanation is logically perfectly correct and you are arguing without thinking about it.

I think it's a shame that tygxc should persist with Mr Sveshnikov's five year plan, since it unnecessarily discredits him and blemishes an apparently fine record, because it seems so obviously deviant from any relationship with a reality which requires much more infrastructure, calculating, money and time to have a chance of success. Other than that, he seems to outthink you, as do I. Sticking to authoritative arguments isn't enough. It's necessary to be able to think very clearly and really to "see" it all in all its relationships with ideas of things. Then to build logical constructions on and with what you hold as mental imagery of these relationships. Trying to build on memories of learned ideas is insufficient. It means you're not thinking for yourself.

@8049

"that doesnt work" ++ It does work.

"you prove absolutely nothing"
++ I outline how it can be done. I earlier proved only 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving chess and that present computers can exhaust these in 5 years.
Many here still fail to understand that.

@8053

"you also still assume that black is playing to draw and not win"
++ This is totally besides the question.

"literally by the second move you have a  false assumption" ++ There is no false assumption.

Van der Herik was an eminent computer theorist, back in the time when computer theory was in its infancy. He is not an expert on game theory, nor an expert on solving chess as he clearly demonstrated. His province is a very broad range of subjects in and around computing. Much too broad for him to be considered an expert on solving chess, which he demonstrates in any case, with his rather weak thinking on the subject. It is a mistake to adopt, mimic or parrot the terminology used by others, when they are not at the top of their game, because the weak thinking will be transferred along with the terminology. I accept that will still seem like a step up for many people here but, I hope, not for everybody.

I would point out that although I sided with you, because for, practical purposes, we do believe we know that chess is a draw with best play by both sides and we certainly ought to realise that black cannot possibly win, due to the strategy you mentioned, if nothing else; it is clear that it isn't a deductive proof in the sense which is required by a strong solution of chess. Even in a weak solution, the supposition that black cannot win by force, although it is perfectly reasonable, is not a proof in the sense wished for by many of the people here. It's an abstract idea which I don't care monkey's for: but others do.

It occurs to me that the absolute loyalty you display to Mr Sveshnikov may be explained by your having known him in the past. Perhaps the same might be said for Professor van der Herik. It seems a likely or plausible explanation.

Do you really want me to refer to it as "that process, which had previously been referred to as strategy stealing"? I think one of us doesn't understand communication, that's for sure.

Ah never thought of that. Of course.

No, that meant that you had been discussing strategy stealing.

On reflection, this is an example of a mode of faulty thinking that is way too common. You said (exact words) "I don't even call it strategy stealing.". The only significance of what you call it is that it might stop people understanding it if you eccentrically choose not to use the standard term, as you indicate.

What matters are CONCEPTS. Words and phrases are just convenient ways to refer to concepts.

Here the concept is (what is known in established terminology as) strategy stealing, a clearly defined concept relating to a class of games where it can be proven the second player cannot have a winning strategy because (fundamentally) there is no zugzwang - any position plus an extra move has value (for the player who moves) at least as high as the same position without the extra move. This property means that if for every strategy for the second player, there is at least one strategy for the first player that achieves as good a result for the first player as the strategy for the second player does for him/her.  This implies the second player cannot have a winning strategy.

For there to be a strategy-stealing result for chess, it would be necessary to dodge all zugzwang positions. Most insightful people will see that it is a safe bet that this scuppers the possibility. Attempting to construct one helps to make this clear.

Examples of where this is easily seen to be so are tictactoe and connect4.

You just talk rubbish regarding expression in the English language. I can't be bothered to argue it out with you and I think your reaction is highly eccentric to say the least. Considering who there is agreeing with you, I'm afraid that counts as a negative and not a positive. You really ought to get him not to give your posts the thumbs up. Looks bad. I've been discussing the tactic itself and not its name or anything else you think applies to that name or should apply to it. You're the one with the comprehension problems, Elroch. This isn't a PhD thesis.

However, I intend to read what you wrote very carefully, regarding strategy stealing, in the hope of learning something, because it isn't too late for some of us to learn. (tygxc is the one who gave that particular tactic that name.)

OK I read what you wrote twice through. I made the point that the examples of tictactoe and connect4 do not relate to chess and I stick to that point. Regarding your assertion regarding "most insightful people", I'm sorry but I most certainly don't regard you as insightful and so any assertion you might make which is based on your own insight, as this is, doesn't stand a chance, in my opinion.

Proving there can be a zugzwang in chess which enables a win for black is impossible. Irrespective of the hypothetical truth, it's impossible for practical reasons, for the foreseeable future. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, in this thread. However, my own insight tells me that it isn't possible in an absolute sense. The relative strengths of our respective "insight" might come into question and your assertion that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 might not lose for white scuppers any chance you have of winning that little competition. If I thought your "insight" was strong I'd tell you I thought that. It isn't.