Chess will never be solved, here's why

With a team of 17 grandmasters and one supercomputer we can prove there is no win in 12 moves.

You only need a big red telephone for that.

No, it's wrong. A forced mate in 70 could be learned within a degree of accuracy that would finish chess forever.

There isn't one though. It would already have been found.

This position was argued over for a century, half the time it was believed to be a White win and half the time a draw,

The longest possible distance to mate with a pair of blocked pawns on the g file and a White pawn on the h file is 33 moves.

So if there were a mate in 70 from this position

 it would already have been found.

Really?

There are almost more errors in your logic then lines of text in your comment

there is no justification for the decisive game/ time per move function u use.

you falsely assume 1 error per decisive game

you falsely assume some sort of comparison between alphazero and your '10^9 nodes' thing

you ignore the fact that there were pre set starting openings.

you falsely assume that your program could catch any errors made.  

you falsely assume that different nodes are of comparable strength.

you falsely assume that the 'top 4' are going to have equivalent individual chances of finding the correct moves.

you also assume a pre existing set of positions to evaluate.  that set doesnt exist yet.

your jump to the "10^9 nodes" is so baseless that it is hard to even begin with what goes wrong with it, because there isnt any reason given for it in the first place.

my best guess at what you erred there was to conflate an alphazero evaluation to be equivalent to a single node.

marattagin also gives some hard data.

you are falsely assuming euler's intent when saying 'absolutely certain' theres a thing called rhetoric.  

txgyc your entire stance is based of taking obscure measurements, info, taking obscure operations on them, and peddling them off as solidly based and concrete logic.  

why else do you think nobody at stockfish has made any of your claims?

Still having a problem understanding big numbers, I see.  Super GMs can't even keep move orders from their own morning prep straight, by the way.  

very interesting, good job Hyvee Huddle App

i clicked to quote on the wrong message i meant the one that u were responding to

i was responding to tygxc but clicked ur message by mistake

@8236

"Where did Euler say that?"
++ He wrote that on June 30, 1742 in a letter to Goldbach:
'Dass ... ein jeder numerus par eine summa duorum primorum sey,
halte ich für ein ganz gewisses theorema, ungeachtet ich dasselbe nicht demonstriren kann.'

@8234

"YOUR CALCULATIONS DON'T WORK."
++ They do. You do not understand.

@8235

"This topic is not about whether chess is a draw.
It's about whether it can be proven to be a draw."
++ The topic weakly solving chess is about finding out how to draw.
We already know chess is draw.

@8240

"Let’s say chess is solved by a super computer. Does it change anything for us?"
++ A player knowing part of the solution has an advantage.

@8242

"If it turns out to be forced win in say less than a hundred moves it would be possible to follow and we may as well all give up playing."
++ It cannot be a forced win, it is a forced draw.
It is indeed a forced draw in less than about 100 moves.
Assuming 4 non-transposing choices per move
4^100 = 10^60.
There are only 10^44 legal positions of which 10^38 with promotions restricted to either a queen or a previously captured piece and of which 10^34 resulting from reasonable play.

That is why weakly solving chess to a draw needs 10^22 positions the stupid and dumb way with no restrictions, 10^19 positions with restricted promotions and 10^17 positions in the smart and clever way.

no its that YOU dont understand that they dont work.  

we dont already know chess is a draw.  i have asked a dozen times and you have failed every single time to give actual evidence for this.  

@8252

"errors in your logic" ++ There are no errors. What you fail to understand is no error.

"the decisive game/ time per move" ++ The more time / move, the less decisive games and the less mistakes. At unlimited time zero decisive games and zero errors.

"1 error per decisive game" ++ Every decisive game has an odd number of errors.
At higher rates of decisive games there are games with 1 error, with 3 errrors, with 5 errors...
As the error rate and the rate of decisive games goes down like in Tata Steel Masters 2023 there are only decisive games with 1 or 3 errors. As the rate of decisive games goes further down,
like in the ICCF WC Finals, decisive games have 1 error only.

"comparison between alphazero and your '10^9 nodes' thing"
++ AlphaZero provides some peer reviewed conclusions of extensive calculations.
10^9 nodes/s is the present state of technology of existing cloud engines.
It mainly serves to convert positions to time needed.

"there were pre set starting openings" ++ No, in that table AlphaZero was free to open.

"your program could catch any errors made"
++ No. The program only calculates to the 7-men endgame table base.
If a white win were reached, then some black move was an error and has to be retracted.
If a black draw or win is reached, then the black moves need not be questioned, but alternatives for the white moves need to be explored.

"different nodes are of comparable strength"
++ Does not matter. The calculation just hops from the initial position to other drawn positions until it reaches a 7-men table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.

"the 'top 4' are going to have equivalent individual chances of finding the correct moves"
++ probability (all 4 top engine moves are errors) = (probability top 1 move is error)^4.

"a pre existing set of positions" ++ The task of the good assistants i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters is to work out suitable starting positions of preferably 26 men for the calculation by the modern computers i.e. 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s (or 3,000 desktops of 10^6 nodes/s).

"jump to the 10^9 nodes" ++ There is no jump. 10^9 nodes/s is the state of the art speed of existing cloud engines now. That is to convert positions to time needed.

"what you erred" ++ I did not err, you failed to understand.
If you are a math student, then you should be able to understand. It is only basic math.

@8269

"we dont already know chess is a draw" ++ We know Chess is a draw.

"give actual evidence" ++ I have given evidence several times.
1 tempo < 1 pawn. A pawn can queen, a tempo cannot. White cannot win.
Each move dilutes the 1 tempo, so if a forced win existed, then it must be short.
Chess has 10^44 legal positions, meaning < 73 non-transposing choices between 4 moves.  
Strategy stealing shows Chess cannot be a black win: for every presumed forced black win there exists a corresponding forced white win by losing a tempo.

The strongest Chess we have is the International Correspondence Chess Federation World Championship Finals: games last 2 years at a rate of 50 days per 10 moves, engines allowed, played by pre-qualified ICCF (grand)masters.
We have 1469 such games, of which 292 are decisive and 1177 are draws.
Assume chess a white win or a black win. Then there must be a probability of 1177 / 1469 of an odd number of errors. Try to fit a Poisson distribution of the errors per game with that outcome. It is impossible. That shows chess is a draw.

Now assume Chess is a draw. Then there must be a probability of 292 / 1469 of an odd number of errors. Try to fit a Poisson distribution of the errors per game with that outcome. It is possible. It shows that over 1000 of the draws are perfect games with no errors i.e. optimal play from both sides. All decisive games are lost by 1 error.
Some of the draws especially from earlier years have 2 errors that undo each other.