Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

tygxc has another definition of "solving" from you and me. It's something about a "weak" solution, which means that less truth is dissolved in a glass of water but there's "some" truth there, all the same. Maybe not enough but "some". Apparently 1000 scientists can weakly solve chess in an afternoon or something that's equally unconvincing.

Remember when @tygxc tried to argue that chess errors follow a poisson distribution when it only follows 1 out of the 3 conditions?

Not so incredible - @tygxc fails to see any argument put to him.

I made the same point in #9138. Zero response, but you can be certain that he will post exactly the same again once the replies have shifted back enough pages.

The idea that black has a forced win because chess is a zugzwang which cannot be broken out of is nothing more than an attemptedly clever proposal which can't be proven in a million years because I worked out that "strongly" solving chess at present speeds would actually take billions of years. The calculations are somewhere in this mess they call a thread.

I also think the zugzwang idea is false. There is no reason to think it true. Some positions are zugzwangs and most are not. They can't be forced. Your argument is false and "for show" only.

Based on the understanding that White's opening advantage, which is due to a developmental initiative of half a move, dwindles and that Black can and does achieve parity in well-played games, it shoukld be clear that a forced break of that parity would be entirely contrary to the trend towards parity. Due to the many different types of position which can be achieved, it would be entirely arbitrary to claim that it can be broken at a particular point in a game, whereas to accept that it can't be broken in an arbitrary manner is to accept that it can't be broken in a forced manner. Those who believe that it can are without a proper understanding of chess and without a proper understanding of what can be inferred from logical trends.

What is your definition of 'advantage'?

An advantage in chess consists of a blend of capability of movement, combination, defence and king safety which is superior to the opponent's.

Some advantages are permanent barring gross errors and some are temporary, meaning that by careful play, an advantage can be nullified. Chess is won by creating an advantage which isn't countered correctly. Small advantages typically expand and become more dangerous if they are countered wrongly, meaning that correct prioritisation is the most important decision making aspect of chess.

@9161

'we found that there is a clear correlation between the first-player’s initiative and
the necessary effort to solve a game' - Games solved: Now and in the Future.
4.3. The advantage of the initiative 
defined the concept of initiative [117], as the right to move first
can the right to move first be considered as a small advantage from where the threat-space search can be started?

Guys, believe it or not this person has sat here and has been sustaining this exact same conversation for the past 2-3 years. @tygxc has never acknowledge points related to Computer Science. Has never acknowledged points related to Game Theory and Statistics. He literally even called Claude Shannon wrong the last time I posted in this thread.

Look, it really is not worth explaining why Chess is generally unsolvable today, and as a result can be a forced WIN/DRAW/LOSS for either white or black. There are more Chess games then there are bits in the Universe. All it takes is a SINGLE game in order to conclude is Chess is a forced win for Black or White (or a draw) and a result won't be solved until the entire table base is gone through. "Cloud computing will solve chess in 5 years", he near said this same statement 5 years ago, it won't ever happen. Get a giant Quantum Computer, put 100 of them in parallel, it still won't happen. These are a DIFFERENT CLASS of problem, unless you genuinely want to understand why this is more of a Math and Science problem, leave because even a 3000 GM will give a worse answer. There is no more strategy at this level. Chess is neither Weakly or Strongly solved, we don't know if it will or even COULD be. It is literally outside of the class of problems solvable by even our best computers.

The current engine result today (cause I remember @tygxc referencing that like it was the end all be all of game evaluation) is literally based of Heuristics. It tells you nothing about the end solvability of the game

^^ That would be a clear inverse correlation. (@#9165)

@Optimissed

Nobody in that subthread appears to be asserting chess is a zugzwang or, apart from yourself, anything else.

Some positions are zugzwangs and most are not. They can't be forced.

Zugzwangs can be forced. If the starting position is a zugzwang, it may not be forced in the conventional sense, but there is no way White can avoid it.

Your argument is false and "for show" only.

This doesn't follow from your preceding statements. If your'e going to assert somebody's argument is false you should be prepared to say where the flaws are. 

I'm suspicious about this correlation in more ways than that it was incorrectly stated.

The meaning (in normal-speak) is that the player with an initiative finds the game easier to play the game. These days, engines tell us that an advantage (initiative) can consist of an extremely tecnically difficult tactical combination. In practice, there are GMs who would prefer to keep the position they like intact, rather than risk an inaccuracy which would weaken their game. Therefore the presence of a difficult, techical initiative make their position more difficult to solve. They have to prioritise in what might be an extremely uncomfortable way.

In that case it's completely clear that you're attempting to make an argument with the fail-safe that you're not intending to make it. Sorry, I don't believe you. You're known to be dishonest.

Its literally insane the amount of effort and time you guys are wasting on this debate. There are MORE games than we could ever possibly compute in the next 1000 years (as we know). From the STARTING move of Chess it is unknown if White or Black is winning. StockFish 84 might give White a +0.51 advantage, but those are Heuristics, we don't KNOW. The initial position could be a Zugzwang, we don't know, in order to know we would have to parse the ENTIRE tree of Chess games from the starting move. Which we can't do, even with 1000 Quantum Computers. End of Discussion

It's a bit of fun in a way. Do you play chess? Is it a waste of time? Just rutting stags. Since I did pretty much give the argument you gave but explained that it fails to another one, why are you bothering?

@9171

"From the STARTING move of Chess it is unknown if White or Black is winning."
++ We know it is a draw.

"The initial position could be a Zugzwang" ++ It is not.

"in order to know we would have to parse the ENTIRE tree of Chess games from the starting move" ++ No. It is unnecessary to strongly solve a game to ultra-weakly solve it.

Strongly solving chess (10^44 positions) is now beyond reach, but weakly solving chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers, needs 10^17 relevant positions and can be done in 15,000 desktop years.

"There are MORE games than we could ever possibly compute"
++ The number of possible chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082.
However, there are 10^44 legal positions.
There are 10^37 legal positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.

Chess it is a square dead draw!! it cannot be solved or white can never win but he dictates the draw!! those who tried to break out the square law of geometry failed to discover any illusion that the square it has more space advantage from any point when you point the other symmetry point of square surface!

Bro I am actually becoming a victim to your troll. I am so glad you found that 10^37 number from who knows where, but did you know there are 10^17 GRAINS OF SAND ON EARTH. You seriously don't even understand how big 10^37 is. Also "We know it is a draw.", ok, lets just call it a draw. End of debate then, its solved, you did it, I can't wait to watch you get a Fields Medal. Now please stop continuing this conversation

Also just for my sake, and anyone reading, literally everything in that top half of your reply is wrong. You are just saying it as fact for I don't know what reason. Its like you have convinced yourself of what reality is and now you are trying to convince us. You got it fam, please stop talking because honestly anyone that just says blatantly wrong Chess information and tries to pass it as FACT in a Chess Forum should honestly be banned