Chess will never be solved, here's why

<<But math is more objective than that.  Or can be.>>

Obviously, you can't.

<<But while that is going on - the actual discussion takes place 'around' him.>>

That's an accurate description though. I admit and accept it's very like taking a walk in the monkey house at a zoo.

You are missing the point.  Every good tennis serve/return/volley/smash has been "solved" too.  But, can you perform them in 98 degree heat?  On a sore ankle?  After 2 hours of sleep?  Against the "best" tennis player champion today?   I doubt it.   

 

Same with chess.   We can all sit here and solve chess puzzles.  Or have a computer do it.   Or, with unlimited time, decide what we think the best move is.   But, in a 30 second rapid game?   Or (pretending) when you are tied with Magnus and 1 more win gets you all the followers, all the glory, all the fame?   This takes nerves of steel and the confidence to not fall apart when tied, or leading.   There are people that can make the same moves as Magnus.  But, can you do it down 2 games?   Can you do it after 5 draws in a row and the opponent is not even tired but it takes everything you have just to draw these games and not blunder?

 

Tennis and chess are not 100% about "solving" problems.  They are about EXECUTING the correct solutions and NOT blundering.   Making as FEW mistakes as possible.   Because mistakes will be made.  

 

Every single "win" I have ever gotten since I started playing Chess was not necessarily from MY wisdom of what move to pick.  It was from MY OPPONENT'S blunders or mistakes.

 

You can be the best car or motorcycle driver in the World, if someone doesn't see you coming and they hit you, it doesn't matter, you are smashed!   That is the same as Chess.   One blunder, or many smaller mistakes and you get hit by the car.  No matter how good you are.

 

Nothing is "solved" until the games are played.

 

 

Again - I'll skip post #831 too.

Regarding the 'gambit' of 'weakly solving' - with the idea that that is to be the discussion.  (apparently a kind of red herring) - its actually being made to 'look good' by comparison with 'the other guy'.
Sometimes that's called 'soft guy - hard guy'.
What often then happens is that 'soft guy' then controls the 'actual discussion' or gets his way or even 'wins' - greatly served by 'hard guy' intensely pursuing provocation of various kinds.
Makes 'soft guy's' posts look much better than they are. 

The actual 'real discussion' can still be had though.
It can survive - like writing on paper that has a printed mosaic in its background.  The mosaic is ignored.
Another analogy - ship in the ocean.  

yup it's simple P&C if both sides play best moves
But I happened to play GM by chance today in bughouse my moves were fuzzy and unpredictable so the direction of game kept changing and he couldn't solve it like human calculator even though he had edge
and variants won't stop coming so chess will always be fun.

this was the game
https://www.chess.com/game/live/37933228599

from @mitsubishieclipse
" It was from MY OPPONENT'S blunders or mistakes."

Good point.  A theory of good chess - one studies 'mistakes' rather than 'what to do'.   What not to do determines game results more than what to do - however much it might seem to the contrary.
And grandmasters become same by getting rid of enough of their mistakes - to move up.  
Related to this is something called 'inadequate play' ...
when trying to distinguish that from 'blunders and mistakes' a snag is run into - because anybody could point at a move in the 'inadequate play' and ascribe the loss of game or negative shift to that move.
Finding such moves doesn't necessarily improve play.
If such moves are caused by 'deficiency of understanding of the position' then somebody after the game saying (accurately)  'this was the move that had to be played.  Plus if you were going to do this other move earlier - you had to follow it with a different plan ...'
Such accuracy doesn't actually correct the situation. 
In 'blunders' yes.  In 'understanding' - no.  
Chess isn't 'solved'.  Openings aren't 'solved'.  Which means that there isn't a digital A or B on 'understanding' openings (nor chess- by extension).  Its scalar.  

You have to be able to improvise when “your plan” is shutdown. Except the really good players aren’t “improvising” as much as “switching gears to another plan” when they are stopped in the current plan. 30 second games are improvisation for me personally. I can’t see 72 moves ahead like the rest of you all… lol. And if I do know what to do, many of you are quicker at moving, so I lose on time.

30 second games and 1 minute games got me back into chess. I quit “video games” and subscribed to Chess.com because no videogame in the World gives me the excitement of an evenly matched Bullet game.

And, unlike -Enter VideoGame Name Here- if all I have before work or lunch is 3 minutes, that can be 2 or 4 games!!!!

I saw Anna Maya Kazarian or the Botez Sisters playing low time limit games, and got interested in chess all over again.

I would not beat anyone good in speed chess. But I can sometimes beat much “better players” because we are playing in 60 seconds. Not 30 minutes per move.

Speed chess is my favorite game in the World.

Thank you to ALL in the chess community for playing so that I could rediscover chess all over again.

Much respect to ALL!

All right people, like my drawings or else ( I don't have a picture, just like my drawings they took 2 hours)

Correct.  And that adds to the discussion -
but doesn't alter fundamentals though.
Regarding 'slow chess' - I have never played the so called 'Daily Chess' on this site or any site.  
The concept of three days per move - well some like it.
Is there fear of making a mistake?    Having three days won't prevent mistakes.  Will it help good play?  Yes and no.  Might help if one learns something - but so often it seems to cause a habit of 'crunching' positions and calculations.  Instead of observing.  

I've 'done my time' on bullet chess and blitz chess.  
And on doing rated tactics problems - rated.
Now I do those rated problems - unrated.  No need to be rated.
I can even select the rating range of problems I want to do.  
Chess.com doesn't make it easy to find the link for it -
but it is there.  https://www.chess.com/puzzles/learning

This thread really has turned into drivel.

Probably not reportable to the moderators - as nobody is named.
'somebody' has admitted to being 'perturbed'.  But he keeps showing up here.  Perhaps that's an objective of 'somebody'.  Although its not the objective of the forum.  Nothing in the opening post to the effect 'get perturbed here'.
But as always - it can be posted around.

And just now - we got new posters.
Who also posted around the provocations.
A good thing.  Progress.

Regarding checkers being solved by computers - and tic tac toe also -
has such 'solving' hurt these games?
I imagine its helped much more than hurt.
Are these games relevant?  By 'logical premise' no.  But as it pertains to the issues of whether solving helps or hurts - they have 'conversational relevance'.

I tried to google worldwide Checkers - checkers ratings and so on - but its not an easy google.  
Googling whether tic tac toe continues to be popular among kids -
haven't tried that yet.
Point:  why would 'solving' by computer hurt any game?
The time has come and gone when it became clear that some computers could outplay chess grandmasters.  It continues to be so - since then.  The top computers are better than the top human players.
Computer solving and computer assistances of various kinds are helping many games.  Making them more popular.
Computers working out poker odds and simulating billions of poker hands hasn't hurt poker.
Online poker has hurt some in-person poker rooms?  Definitely.
But Covid has probably hurt them worse.
Besides - people who learn poker online - can and do show up to play poker in person.  
That happens with chess too.
It'll happen more after Covid is over.
Another reason to show up in person is that there's a lot of Cheating online.
But 'computer solving' seems to be helping with gameplaying. 
Not hurting.

Tic Tac Toe is not a game.   You've been lied to.   A quick Google search will tell you that whoever goes first and has first move, the same square always wins.  It cannot be defended.  If you have ever gone first, and lost, in tic tac toe, it is your own fault.  If you pick the right square first, nothing the opponent does can win.   First turn person should ALWAYS win 100%. If they pick that square.   No supercomputer needed.

As for "computer Poker", no.  They can be programmed to give playable hands.  For example, 3 players, it can be programmed to give 2 people a pair in the dealing.  3rd and 6th cards are 4's.  The whole deck can be programmed.  If you played Zynga Poker on Facebook, or Xbox Live, you will know that very rarely is there not a decent hand given to someone.   When you play with REAL cards, you can get many more boring hands.   

  But THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in Poker is humans can bluff.   If someone puts $100 in every time they have a good hand (and you call it each time and lose thinking they are bluffing) and that person is not smart, they will keep going all in on good hands.   Then you know to hold if your hands good, or fold if you have junk.   But you learn to "read" that type of player like a book.   A master poker player can mix it up and keep you guessing.   Slow raising $7 at a time (instead of $100 all in) when they are dealt incredible hands.  So you think they just have 2 aces or something and you have three 4's, so you take the bait.   Then you are out $30 by the end of the hand...    Obviously it's more complicated than that.   Also you can show excitement like a newbie and go all in when you have a good hand.  But, later on when the stakes are high, ONE TIME you don't have a good hand, you get all excited and go all in, and the other players fold, meanwhile you had a garbage hand, not even two 2's because they trusted you and were burned thinking you were bluffing a few times in the last 20 hands...   Etc...   Computer poker is NOTHING compared in person poker.  Plus the computer does all the betting easy, you don't need to know chips or deal the cards or anything.   Computer poker is good for learning rules.  Learning that 4 aces doesn't always win, learning that you truly can't tell by bets what a person has, but until you play in person, the whole psychological game comes into play.   And people that can have 4 aces,  A full House, or a 2, 4, 9, 10, King unsuited and their expression won't change or their mood.   

You could also consider that after taking a lot of time on a move -
that a grandmaster - after getting his opponent's reply move -
even if that reply move was expected and pre-analyzed by him -
might then take a lot more time on his next move.
This is a big problem for people who want to 'crunch' chess.com puzzles before they move anything at all.  Always crunch that is.
If they've 'seen everything' - then how can they justify taking more time after getting the next reply move ? 

'please tell me you are joking'  -
I never claimed that people 'see everything' in a 30 second game.   Nor 'in 30 seconds'.  
There's something called 'attacking your own idea'.  It wastes a lot of time in chat rooms and I often ignore it after pointing out that its happened.   
Why would people do that?
Apparently so that there's something to disagree with ...  no disagreement -no discussion.  Even though that does Not logically follow and also is not the case. 
Semantics over the word 'game' and 'lied to' are also 'not going to get it'.  There's another forum - arguing over whether chess is a sport or not.  A lot of time being invested there over the semantics of one word.

Those who don't like math might do better over there maybe.  
Or be doing better.

No idea what you are talking about.

You told me literally “More time doesn’t help you catch mistakes.”

Which is completely false. No argument to it what-so-ever.

Pro or beginner, the time helps you see what you, and more importantly, what your opponent can do, to better chose an action.

To say otherwise, as was literally stated, is completely false.

Go back and read it yourself. You literally said “Extra time will not prevent mistakes.”

Then you reply with “I never said you could see everything in 30 seconds.”

Well, then, what WERE you referring to in bullet or blitz that doesn’t exist in longer timed matches?

Literally the only difference between a 30 second time limit and a game hours long IS the TIME! Lol.

Different board? Nope.

Different chess pieces? Nope.

Oh, yeah, that mad rush in the last few seconds as players make 16 moves… Maybe that is the difference!

No time to plan or absorb everything…

And sorry, but that can make even the best players mess up…

Which is what I said.

Not even replying about it anymore. You literally said short time doesn’t affect decisions/mistakes. Then said that you can’t plan everything in a 30 second game…

Hmmm…

Nah. I’ll pass. Hard pass on that one…

#849
Of course more time means less errors.
We even have data on that from AlphaZero.
At 1 s / move: 88.2% draw rate means 1 error per 668 positions.
At 1 min / move: 97.9% draw rate means 1 error per 3810 positions.

Extrapolating:
At 1 h / move: 99.6% draw rate means 1 error per 21,000 positions.
At 60 h / move: 99.93% draw rate means 1 error per 120,000 positions.

At 60 h / move with 1 takeback / move: 1 error per 10^10 positions.
At 60 h / move with 2 takebacks / move: 1 error per 10^15 positions.
At 60 h / move with 3 takebacks / move: 1 error per 10^20 positions.

Hence 3 takebacks / move should suffice to prove chess at 10^19 relevant positions.