@Optimissed has a point tho, all of you except him seem to be going in circles. he kind of is the only one bringing up new topics while @Elroch and all the others just seem to contradict him no matter how valid his argument is.
Read the 500+ pages of the thread. You'll see that beside Tygxc, the undisputed king of repetition, Optimissed is a worthy queen. There hasn't been a new idea out of him on this topic for years. Not surprising, since he doesn't understand it from either the math end or the computer science end.
What he does do:
- Complain about the established nomenclature, then make up his own definitions.
- Posit algorithmic solutions when he cannot begin to codify them...functionally no different than a call to magic.
- Claims he knows chess is a draw by virtue of his own experience/playing skill when super GMs will only say "chess is probably a draw with best play".
The situation has not changed. Solving chess is out of reach:
- The number of unique positions to traverse for a real proof is 10^44. There are some theories that this number can be dropped to 10^43 by further pruning. There are no viable theories about pruning 10^44 to 10^17. That's pure fantasy. To do so would effectively mean that only 1 in 1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chess positions would be considered "valid" positions to be checked. Does that sound right to you?
- If you spent the entire wealth of the planet to build a server farm just to process evaluations and left humanity to starve and rot it would still take millions of years to calculate with current technology. If you mined the entire asteroid belt of the solar system to make a storage array, it could not hold the evaluation results. Etc.
- Quantum computing is not able to even touch this problem as things sit; it is not in the sweet spot of things that quantum computing is good for (like cryptography), and there's a currently insurmountable destructive read problem in the way as well even if the quantum computer's instruction set could do the job.
- There's no progress, zero, nada, zilch in terms of building an algorithmic solution that "proves" best play as it goes along. You can prove who will will a pawn race, sure. You cannot begin to prove "best play" in a middlegame. Letting the best engines sit on a position for 5 days (or 50 days, or 500 days) does not prove best play in terms of solving chess.
Chess could be solved in the way that we could map every possible move and counter move.
Except I didn't know what you were trying to write. I think humans could possibly solve it (though probably with some computer assistance) in time, but not by mapping every possible move and counter move. And I really doubt humans will ever have a strong solution.
In that case you can never realy say you have solved it, because it Will always be a move unacounted for.
Not true. I can post you a reliable method of winning any winning KRK position that accounts for all possible opponent's moves but doesn't map every possible move and counter move.
There are many such expositions, though some don't reliably win under competition rules.
Sorry for the missunderstanding. I totally agree. We are talking about the same thing. Schematic moves does write out all moves and counter moves. In the same way that in math N*2 writes out every possible even number.