Chess will never be solved, here's why

Anyway, I'll leave you alone so you can breed small trolls.
 MARattigan 
 
 
 0 
#8712
Optimissed wrote:Fortunately, the standard position and nothing else is what is meant by chess. Not a starting position where whoever has the move has an immediate win, such as might happen if black had the f and g pawns missing etc. So your post was wrong.
Then your games can't be very long. But you prove my last point.

Rubbish. Pretence maketh the troll, in this case.

You told me you could prove it but that's an assertion and not a proof. I don't accept your assertion, which is unproven. Do you actually know what a proof is?

Don't rely on MAR. He really is a troll.

Seriously, any proof regarding this would only emerge if and when chess is strongly solved. That isn't ever going to happen, of course.

“You told me you could prove it but that's an assertion and not a proof. I don't accept your assertion, which is unproven. Do you actually know what a proof is?”
 
it’s asserted because it’s already known to be true.  That’s how a math proof works.

I even gave the exact formulas for the mirror moves in my original proof

Optimized what did I assert that wasn’t true by definition or widely known to be true?

The entire claim you made.

Honestly, Megache3se, there are plenty of clever and competent people who comment on this site but there is quite a lot of people who have some mental problem or inability and you don't want to be looking like them. Sure, that kind of person will befriend you. Very often, due to age, people's mental abilities decline and they cover it up by becoming cynical and trolling defensively. Don't take their word for anything. You have to be able to tell who is honest and who is intelligent and knowledgeable ... or you just become like the trolls.

Your claim that it's known to be true is an assertion. I could use my philosophical expertise and make a counter-claim. It's called an "argument from authority" and it's almost worthless.

I don't accept it's known to be true, anyhow. You would have to prove it. That is impossible, in my opinion. It's just a claim.

Furthermore, it isn't even relevant, because you would have to show that it's possible for black to zugzwang white. Only a proof that black can win by force is sufficient and that's nonsense.

Quite. He doesn't and neither do you.

     Nice to see that you agree that "argument from authority" is virtually worthless. I hope that means that we will see no more claims that we know chess is a draw, we know black cannot have a forced win, and other opinions you dismiss without proof because you understand everything better than anyone else does.

Chess is just too hard man

Always the aspersions about people collaborating clandestinely to take you down...

I doubt anyone has "befriended' anyone here.  This is just the status quo...you make claims, and the nature of your erroneous claims draws more and more opposition from more and more people over time .  It's really pretty simple.

To say what I did was an argument from authority would be a strawman.  I was speaking in the terms of that it is known that 1+1=2its an axiom (technically 1+1=2 isn’t an axiom but that is a technicality)

The mirror move  plausibility is directly derived from the rules of chess

It can likely be 'solved," as the possible positions and games are finite.

It's also worth noting that, while computers seem to have clearly surpassed humans in terms of play*, they are (afaik), programmed by humans; and thus the determinations of optimal play could still be flawed, even for computing power (until you can map every possible game and analyze that data set).

Even moves that are seemingly obvious (eg - taking a free piece with no obvious giveback in material or position) doesn't necessarily mean the play is optimal, or that taking the piece is correct, as you'd need to examine ever branch to know that for certain (I would think).

* not sure if this is correct but I thought I read that no human has beaten the top computers in more than a decade or something (though I don't know how many games that encompasses or if the top computers are free to play against).  It's a little surprising if true, as you'd think that by analyzing computer games you could see what was happening enough to actually compete. 

You are wrong. And if do not believe so, then I would love for you to prove that your postulate is not wrong. Take quantum computing, which is by far the fastest type of computing available right now, with approximately a trillion calculations per second. If we just assume the first answer on Google is correct, then we need to calculate some ~10^40 moves. 

Computational speed = 10^12*s^-1
Moves to be calculated = ~10^-40

I want to leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how many years that would take. Sure, there might exist certain algorithms, which have a great efficiency in terms of solving this issue, but I don't think anything that we know and possess right now will be able to solve chess in 5 years. 

@8731

"love for you to prove"

"Take quantum computing" ++ Not even necessary: existing engines can do it.

Computational speed = 10^9*s^-1
Positions to be calculated = 10^17 = Sqrt (10^37 *10 / 10^4) for weakly solving Chess

"how many years that would take" = 5
3 engines * 10^9 nodes/s/engine * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7 * 10^17

Just to clarify, is this a single top computer, or all of the world's computers.  If the latter, couldn't you start chopping away by using multiple devices?

Is this just to map positions/games, or does it include some sort of analysis?