Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
Avatar of Optimissed
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

elroch has 147393 posts

Elroch >10,000 posts/year

Tygxc >5,000 posts/year

Optimissed >2,865 posts/year

Btickler >1,675 posts/year

From this, we can clearly deduce the following...

1. Elroch is twice the scientist and mathematician that Tygxc is

2. Optimissed trolls 1.7x as often as I post


That's too kind. You really are very kind and I misjudged you.

I suspect that Elroch is more than twice the mathematician and scientist that tygxc is. However, he's predominantly biassed towards a mathematical mindset and I think that can be a slight disadvantage. Science and maths are both tools we humans have at our disposal; but science is tuned to reality because it's based on observations of it. Maths, instead, uses ideals and, when you're immersed in it, I think that via an accurate deployment of observation and contemplation, we can discern that there's a strong temptation to conflate the ideal with the real and to reify the ideal.

So to the tune of Cliff Richard's awful song, "Congratulations", we can sing

chorus:
Ob - ser -va - tion
And Contemplation
Discern reality
Of Re - al - i - tee.
A strong temptation
To use conflation
Brings reification
Of things we cannot see.

verse
etc

Avatar of Always-the-UnderDog

Chess is one of the most complex and challenging games in the world. With millions of possible positions and moves, it has been a longstanding question whether the game can ever be fully "solved" - that is, if every possible outcome of every game can be determined. 

As of now, no computer program or human player has been able to solve chess completely. This means that it has not been determined what the outcome of every possible game would be. Nevertheless, there has been significant progress in developing algorithms and artificial intelligence techniques that have been able to defeat human champions and solve some variations of the game. One of the most famous examples is the 1997 match between the computer program Deep Blue and world champion Garry Kasparov, which ended with Deep Blue winning 3.5-2.5. More recently, in 2017, the program AlphaZero, developed by DeepMind, learned to play chess at an expert level after just four hours of self-play, and went on to defeat the then-best chess engine Stockfish in a 100-game match.

While these accomplishments are remarkable, they do not mean that chess is completely solved. In fact, it is unlikely that chess will ever be fully solved. The reason is that chess is an incredibly complex game, with an enormous number of possible positions and moves. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence techniques currently available are limited by their computational power and the complexity of the game.

That being said, it is possible that future advancements in artificial intelligence and computing power could lead to the complete solution of chess. However, even if this were to happen, it would not necessarily make the game any less interesting or enjoyable to play. The beauty of chess lies not in its solvability, but in its complexity and strategic depth. There are endless variations and possibilities in the game, which require a deep understanding of strategy and tactics to master. The challenge of playing against another human player, with all their unpredictable moves and unexpected strategies, is what makes chess such a fascinating and rewarding game.

In conclusion, the possibility of solving chess remains an open question, and it is uncertain whether this will ever be achieved. However, the continued progress in artificial intelligence and the development of new techniques and algorithms suggest that we may be getting closer to a complete solution. Regardless of whether chess is ever fully solved, the game will remain a fascinating and challenging test of strategic thinking and skill.

Avatar of Optimissed
MEGACHE3SE wrote:

You still also haven’t looked at the articles I gave that explicitly explained how it is a misconception that science proofs exist, or that they are in any way similar to how math is done


Again, you seem mixed up. The fact that a science proof doesn't duplicate a maths proof doesn't mean that science proofs don't exist. You REALLY shouldn't believe everything you read, when it suits you do do so and not when it doesn't. I think you misunderstand the relationship between maths and science. Science uses maths as an effective tool to depict and quantify relationships. There needs to be a correspondence between maths and science but duplication of methodology is impossible. Such articles probably aren't worth reading, because they will be written from an unbalanced perspective. At some point I'll read one of them and tell you what I think and why.

Avatar of Optimissed
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:

Tygxc are you also just ignoring all of the articles I sent explaining how scientific proof is a lie and completely different than a math proof?


Can't really blame him since you don't know what you're talking about. Of course they are different things. One is deduction only and the other a combination of deduction and what is called induction, or the idea of drawing a generality from "anecdotal evidence", as all accounts of observational evidence, however accurate, are sometimes referred to online.

The problem is your lack of understanding of scientific proof.

That isn’t what proof by induction is: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

 

how about you go ask your son if the articles I sent were wrong

He wouldn't be interested. I'll read your wiki link and explain to you how you're misunderstanding it, if you want. I did deliberately use my wording ...

<<induction, or the idea of drawing a generality from "anecdotal evidence">>

... as a means to find out whether you could actually think. I'll get back to you on your Wiki article, if you wish. You aren't half full of yourself though. That really does require ability and I have that ability. You apparently do not.

Avatar of Optimissed

Oh dear. Your wiki link is to mathematical induction, which is of no interest to me and which doesn't relate to what we're discussing, except that it isn't counter to

<<induction, or the idea of drawing a generality from "anecdotal evidence">>.

All you need is to substitute a numeric series for "anecdotal evidence", with which I meant scientific observation. However, this is uninteresting:
<<History
In 370 BC, Plato's Parmenides may have contained traces of an early example of an implicit inductive proof.[5] An opposite iterated technique, counting down rather than up, is found in the sorites paradox, where it was argued that if 1,000,000 grains of sand formed a heap, and removing one grain from a heap left it a heap, then a single grain of sand (or even no grains) forms a heap.[6]>>

That really is ridiculous, don't you think? A rather clumsy, rhetorical means of trying to confuse students, maybe? I mean, to see which ones can quickly formulate an efficient argument to dismiss such an absurdity?

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

“Instead of all black responses weakly solving Chess only calls for 1 black way to draw against all white opposition
That leaves Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions.“

and here your calculations no longer become accurate

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

Which 10^17 positions?

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

“3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s each calculate in 5 years
10^9 nodes/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7 * 10^17 nodes

Thus 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s can in 5 years weakly solve Chess.”

and there’s another inaccuracy

you assume perfect play from each node, whereas engines that already incorporate 10^9 nodes a second are hugely inaccurate.  

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

So I ask again, where are your accurate calculations 

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

“That is also what GM Sveshnikov said:
Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers 
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.”

And that is another inaccuracy.  A quote taken out of context.

Avatar of nononono06

Wait 20 years

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

For each position until the table base there must be a black move.  

Avatar of tygxc

@9053

It is even the title of the interview: 'GIVE FIVE YEARS - I WILL "CLOSE" CHESS!"'

@9055

Yes, in each position until the 7-men endgame table base there must be a black move.

@9051

"you assume perfect play from each node, whereas engines that already incorporate 10^9 nodes a second are hugely inaccurate" ++ No, I do not assume perfect play. For white I explore all reasonable alternatives, best first. For black I take the engine top 1 move. I do not worry if that is perfect or not. It will be perfect in 99,999 of 100,000 positions. It will be an error in 1 of 100,000 positions, but that will show as then no 7-men endgame table base draw will be reached.

@9052

"where are your accurate calculations" ++ Above @9042

@9050

"Which 10^17 positions?" ++ Those that show up during the solving process, all of them draws.

@9049

"here your calculations no longer become accurate"
++ It is accurate. Take move 1. 20 legal moves for white, each 20 legal responses for black. Gives 20*20 = 400. Weakly solving only calls for 1 response for black. Thus 20*1 = 20 = Sqrt (400).
At depth d moves with a choice between w moves per ply that do not transpose:
Strongly solving w^(2d), weakly solving w^d = Sqrt (w^(2d))

Avatar of Optimissed
MEGACHE3SE wrote:

So I ask again, where are your accurate calculations 


Your problem is, you took the same attitude to me, where you were clearly wrong and didn't really understand the points you were trying to make. That's a bit like crying wolf and you aren't likely to be taken seriously. You should pick your targets better.

Avatar of MARattigan
tygxc wrote (#9055):

...

It will be an error in 1 of 100,000 positions, but that will show as then no 7-men endgame table base draw will be reached.

...

Shouldn't that be a blunder in 1 of 13 nodes as checked against the tablebases in the examples I posted? Are you not a tad adrift there?

(I say "nodes" rather than "positions". You can't talk about blunders in positions with your definition of position, because under FIDE competition rules the same move may be a blunder or perfect in one and the same of your "positions" as I demonstrated in #9018. You're confusing basic rules positions, as calculated by Tromp, with competition rules nodes, as in quoted nodes per second.)

Avatar of chessuser999

Yep

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

“For white I explore all reasonable alternatives, best first. ”

then it isn’t weakly solving.  By definition weakly solving must cover all alternatives.

it doesn’t matter the statistical likelihood that there is an error there .  This is a proof, not a heuristic 

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

“GIVE FIVE YEARS - I WILL "CLOSE" CHESS“exactly. That’s more evidence that it was taken out of context.  

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

Tygxc you don’t actually know what a node per second is.  That’s a measure of how many chess positions are used to calculate A SINGLE MOVE. A node isn’t a calculated response to that position.

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE

Tygxc I recommend this article 

https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis 
and havigg bc some reading comprehension