Chess will never be solved, here's why

Incidentally, in the diagram you give, there's only one possible move for white which is relevant to a solution of chess, since every other move would be an error which needlessly lengthens the game and thus is not part of any solution. So you should focus.

I do believe that chess we last a long time without being solved, if it ever does one day get solved.

Perhaps I should point out that in the context of the ideal of "perfect play", any move is a perfect move, if it maintains the balance of the position. That is, if it's a draw, given best play (by both sides) then it's still a draw. However, in the context of "solving" the game, a move which misses an easy and immediate forced win is an error. Unless you work within these definitions, you will not be able to think constructively, regarding this subject. Thus, the so-called "strong" solution is completely irrelevant to a full and proper solution of the game. If you do not understand such a simple proposition, then it's back to the monkey house.

#894
There are two differences between strongly solving and weakly solving.
1) Consider the following position

Weakly solving means all positions with a white pawn on e2, a white pawn on d2, a black pawn on e7, a black pawn on d7, a white light square bishop, two black knights, a white queen and 7 white pawns, a black queen and 7 black pawns are no longer relevant and do not need to be evaluated. This reduction in size correponds to the square root like in checkers.

2) If we can prove that 1 e4 e5 draws, then it is not necessary to establish if 1 e4 c5, 1 e4 e6, 1 e4 c6... also draw or not. That gives another reduction of time by a factor 10.

I'm sorry but white does not have a pawn on e2 etc etc in that position, so a position with a pawn on e2 is not relevant to any kind of solution to that position. So we are no nearer.

#896
That is the point: a strong solution needs to look at all 10^37 positions.
A weak solution can bypass positions that cannot be reached or positions that do not need evaluation.
White opens 1 e4. Now all positions with a white pawn on e2 are no longer relevant.
Black defends 1...e5. Now all positions with a black pawn on e7 are no longer relevant.
If 1...e5 draws, then all positions with 1...c5, 1...e6, 1...c6, ... are no longer relevant.

Somebody, somewhere, must be very, very confused, because a situation has somehow been generated where no-one here is talking much sense. That someone isn't me. It's whoever has put these ideas in the collective mind of you lot!

Then why did you mention that position? I'm afraid that specific positions don't enter into any possible distinction between the hypothetical weak and strong solutions of chess. A strong solution, by your definition of having to look at all positions possible, is also irrelevant to a full solution of chess. Therefore it ought to be discounted and no more reference to it should be made. Just talk in terms of a solution. Next, consider what is necessary for a solution.

The answer is a positional evaluation algorithm, far superior to anything we have at the moment. That is because, without that, any full solution of chess is virtually infinite and therefore impossible. Without that algorithm, there isn't any point in following the lines, since they can't be evaluated. It would literally take millions of years at the fastest computer speeds. But the so-called "weak" solution is impossible anyway without that algorithm. Therefore, even mentioning weak and strong solutions is not thinking clearly, with correct prioritisation of the various factors.

In a nutshell, that is why the conversation here hasn't been going anywhere. The people arguing here have confined themselves to terms set out by others and those terms are faulty and incomplete. The situation is far from <<<you would do better to conclude that your understanding of the topic is not as good as those who define these terms>>> as proposed by Elroch. When faced with such obvious confusion, which has entirely prevented a fruitful conversation between you, the only reaction can be to examine the paradigm which you seem to accept as correct. Because you assume that those who have set it out can see it more clearly than I can. Judging by the total confusion here alone, that's incorrect!

edited^^

#899
"Then why did you mention that position?"
I tried to explain the mysterious square root reduction be means of an example. In the course of these first moves large numbers of positions have been rendered irrelevant by each pawn move and each capture. The strong solution needs those positions, the weak solution can do without.

"any full solution of chess is virtually infinite"
No, even a strong solution of chess i.e. a 32-men table base is finite: 10^37 positions.
The weak solution requires far less positions: about 10^17 positions. That is feasible.

"The answer is a positional evaluation algorithm"
No, a simple evaluation function just to guide the calculation is superior. You cannot decide the evaluation of a position by some static algorithm, you need to calculate the possibilities.

I'm wondering if you understand the meaning of the word "virtually" or, for that matter, the phrase "within practical terms or limits". Also, the square root reduction is a rough approximation and therefore it's conjecture. It's sufficient to understand that every irreversible move made reduces future possibilities. That's obvious, just like "every line looked at by the engine reduces the number of lines that haven't been looked at by the engine". That means exactly the same, in a slightly different context.

#902
That is the point: the strong solution is not (yet) practical, but the weak solution is.
Yes, the square root is a conjecture, borrowed from the checkers' proof.
It is not "every line looked at by the engine reduces the number of lines that haven't been looked at by the engine" it is rather each pawn move and each capture make huge numbers of positions not necessary to look at in the future. It is not that obvious: many people here still do not get it.

The weak solution isn't practical, without a much better positional assessment capability. What you say about the square root conjecture is or should be obvious to anyone discussing this, except that of course it may not be a square root. It just reduces the lines that need to be looked at. You can't seriously be suggesting that even some people talking here don't understand that? I mean, I know they may have their limitations but surely it's a relatively simple matter of subtraction?

I fully accept that many people arguing on these forums, as a whole, may not be all that bright, but I wouldn't have thought that those arguing here, in this thread, can fail to understand that?

Perhaps Sheveshnikov or whoever believed(s) that a solution is practical within five years but that may just highlight his own limitations.

If a nation state can crack quantum encryption (which was thought to be 100% uncrackable)... Anything is possible. Those who say it can't be solved do not understand that it will be solved one day. All it takes is money to produce the computing power to solve it.

Whose money? Of course it could be done eventually, given billions in investment in it. Who's going to do that? So no, it isn't a case of lack of understanding at all. It's about practicalities.

#907
3 cloud engines during 5 years plus human assistants, that is millions, not billions.
Whose money? Google, IBM, Lomonosov University could do it.
Schaeffer did it for checkers. He worked on it for years.

It would be great puzzle of mate in 120 showing the opening starting position then

Yeah that'll be right.

Probably only 27 legal positions in chess all told.

Three microseconds on a cloud cuckoo engine with a cleaning lady. Can't  fault your logic.

So far, we've arrived at the understanding that weak and strong solving can't be distinguished from one-another wrt the practicalities of a real solution of chess and, in fact, it's redundant to talk in terms of a "solution" or "solving", except hypothetically. We may not have all arrived together but this is the starting point. So why is this? What is so wrong with the way that the problem has been approached, hitherto, or at least, in this thread?

The answer to this lies in the idea of the "strong solution" and it is this which has plagued the entire enterprise. The reason is that a strong solution considers only all the logical possibilities within chess, regarding positions which may be reached. Unfortunately, that completely ignores the contraints which apply to the game, which are not to lose and to try to win, with either colour. So it can be seen that the majority of potential positions within the strong solution are useless, since they arise from random move permutations.

Solving chess actually means that both sides play sequences of moves that are designed not to lose and, hopefully, to win. Yet we cannot know exactly which sequences will do this until they're analysed and assessed. This means that there must be a considerable latitude allowed to include moves that may be viable. The best method would be to work within rather tight constraints at first and do subsequent runs as and when advances are made in speed and accessment accuracy, which will allow broader search patterns to be used. This is because a full, so called "strong" analysis may take millions of years, even allowing for the reduction in eliminating serious mistakes, for which seperate, positional assessment engines are run in parallel with the main search.

This necessity of including sequences which may contain obvious mistakes means that in practice, there's no such thing as a weak solution. It simply doesn't exist in practice. What is necessary, within the contraints of these terms, is a semi-strong process. Or semi-weak: same thing. It's also best to talk in terms of processes rather than solutions because, after all, we have no idea whether we're going to arrive at a solution.

I don't expect everybody to be able to follow these ideas, even though they seem simple and obvious to me, because we all have our preferences in how we express ourselves. But the main criticism of the discussion so far is that there has been no appreciation of the fact that the definitions of strong and weak are hypothetical and that although we have the idea of a strong solution, that contains all possible continuations that are within the laws of chess, these are no use for deciding which of these lines are best wrt not losing and hopefully winning. The authors of the definitions have made a weak attempt to apply their "weak solution" to a "strong solution", which is actually completely different in type and quality, because it contains no assessments at all. So they're mixing paradigms. And that is the crunch: people here have been discussing this, without any regard for the necessary processes of assessment that must be used. They just seem to assume that they'll appear magically somehow. It is very faulty thinking indeed.