Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes, tygxc is right. We worked out roughly how long it would take to analyse chess with a computer running at present speeds. The conservative answer is millions of years but it's probably billions. You can never really get to the end, either.

The "weak" solution is knowing chess is a draw by best play but it's unprovable unless heuristics are developed that can do what hasn't been done: identify critical points in chess and develop a series of equations (models) which depict the critical points, where games are won and lost, in all their varieties. Then put them together and you have a composite model of chess. I don't think it's anywhere near being done because chess is too dependent on specific tactics, which means specific pawn positions. You can develop models of parts of the board but unless there are fixed pawn chains, maybe there's no way to assume that those parts are isolated from other parts.

That gives a deceptive answer. We know that random chance can only be analysed or predicted statistically: i.e. via probability. However, you're implying that the game of chess MAY be subject to chance, whereas there's absolutely no reason to assume that may be so. Chance comes into chess via moves that players make but not via possible moves where the best moves only are being sought and considered.

Therefore your analogy with the white and black balls and the urn isn't applicable to a situation which we can be sure ISN'T dictated by chance.

Did you ever consider it could be a zug zwang?

It's not a joke at all. White to move black wins.

Take that Alpha Zero AI chess thingy for instance

People still do not understand:

'ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and
strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions' - 'Games solved: Now and in the future'

For all practical purpose Chess already is ultra-weakly solved: the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
Strongly solving chess would require a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions, which is prohibitive.
That leaves weakly solving, as was done for Checkers. It needs 10^17 relevant positions, which takes 15,000 desktop years or 15 cloud engine years.

@9133

'Did you ever consider it could be a zug zwang?'
++ That runs contrary to centuries of game theory, saying that going first is an advantage.
This is easily disproved by strategy stealing.
Suppose 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win.
Then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win.

"++ No, also logic is allowed." @tygxc #9117.

Allowed, but apparently not mandatory.

Edit: It appears to be necessary to provide a hint to any ultra-weak minded individuals applauding @tygxc's ridiculous argument.

"game-theoretic" is a completely redundant phrase. Simply "value" or "assessment". Get rid of the useless magic words. When you see such things, be suspicious that someone needs to make their suggestion look tasty. Why do they need to?

So that everyone (other than yourself) knows exactly what they're talking about.

Dictionary definition of urn:

1. n Container for a dead person's ashes.

2. n Large vessel containing tea.

3. n Place where a mathematician keeps his balls.

I know that's a tempting proposal but it's the other way round. I can interpret the meaningless gobbledook. Trained in philosophy and all that, which is full of it. You have to be able to see where arguments are so weak that the philosophy professor concerned needs some padding on which he can rest his weary bones.

Others perhaps can't or they imbue it with mysterious qualities of profound wisdom, too deep for their grasp to be sure.

@9129

"what you can infer from 95 draws"
++ You have very little understanding of certainty.
The point is not only that 95 out of 95 games are draws after 1.5 years of analysis by 17 ICCF GM/SIM/IM with their engines, but also that draws are achieved in various ways.

White tries 1 d4: Catalan, Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Nimzovich Indian Defense/Queen's Indian Defense, Grünfeld Indian Defense all draw.

White tries 1 e4: Ruy Lopez/Italian, Petrov, Sicilian, French all draw.

So even if in the ongoing 41 games there would be a win in one line,
there are several alternative lines of defense to hold the draw.

++You have very little understanding.

No. Cuckoos in @tygxc's clouds I think.

I think you mean checkmate mate.

Chess is bot impossible to solve. Yeah, humans probably (99.999999999%) won't solve chess, but the engines may solve it in the future if billionares pay for it. But there's nothing to worry about. Imagine chess is solved. Who cares? Will the super GMs start to memorize all the possible lines leading to win /draw? Certainly no. Even if they live and spend 500 years for memorizing them. It also won't effect on the chess players. Nobody will be able to memorize the lines. Even if it happens, chess will be still a challenging tatical brain game and memorizing won't be the key to improve. It won't be very important since it won't effect on our strategy and calculation. Just forexample the analysis tools will become much more exact and the cheaters may become more advanced.

My first sentence was "Chess is "not" impossible to solve" I wrongly typed "b"

"Then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win."

i already directly explained how that isnt a proof. black doesnt have to make those moves.

its honestly incredible how you are failing to see this basic logic.

im actually baffled at how @tygxc cant seem to comprehend this.

in fact, the strategy stealing argument can literally NEVER WORK because white has no means of breaking parity outside of a capture or check.