@9175
Of the 10^44 legal positions only 10^17 are relevant to weakly solve Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
Ok, congrats you did it, I guess no one has ever made that connection until you came along. Time to bust your PC and get your Fields Medal, Me and my Great-Great-Great-Great^30 grand children will be waiting
@9177
One desktop does not do it:
weakly solving chess requires 15,000 desktop years or 15 cloud engine years.
Anyway, we are close now:
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104
Each game represents 3 engine years.
^^ The general consensus is that that's completely wrong.
@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.
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
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
Not true. If it's a zugzwang then Black wins. You have to parse the tree only up to the point that you've found a complete half forest (single moves for Black from each node; all moves for White) where each terminal node is a Black mate. If it's a relatively short forced mate, entirely conceivable.
There is also the possiblity of a proof along the lines of the one you first learned for KRvK which doesn't rely on any tree search (but it would obviously be rather more complicated).
A zugzwang is a position where the side with the move loses because they must move. The initial position isn't a zugzwang. There's no doubt about that in MY brain. Inferior brains do exist .....
@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.
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
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
Not true. If it's a zugzwang then Black wins. You have to parse the tree only up to the point that you've found a complete half forest (single moves for Black from each node; all moves for White) where each terminal node is a Black mate. If it's a relatively short forced mate, entirely conceivable.
There is also the possiblity of a proof along the lines of the one you first learned for KRvK which doesn't rely on any tree search (but it would obviously be rather more complicated).
I thank you for actually giving a response based in the field this question is in (I am not saying the only discussion has to be scientific, but we shouldn't go around in circles). Now I will be the first to say I am no where near an expert in this field, I am just a comp sci grad, but still in all reality this question is more based on computation than it is any form of Chess "gameplay".
Now to respond, wouldn't finding a "complete half forest" for the game require you to complete the entire tablebase? Essentially the same as generating all the combinations possible akin to my first reply. I could be misunderstanding you because I have not heard the term before, but is that basically saying you only have to parse down the game tree (from start) until you find a string of moves that will lead to a win for either side?
I would have to look more into that, I have not looked into this problem for a while because I am pretty sure it is literally not "worth" discussing (in the sense that the Riemann Hypothesis isn't worth discussing), but I am pretty sure that would not be possible since the only amount of solved games (forced mate without playing BAD moves) are 7-move Tablebases, an entirely minuscule portion of the games possible combination of moves. But Let me know if I am thinking about that incorrectly
in all reality this question is more based on computation than it is any form of Chess "gameplay"
Probably correct, but I don't think the possibility of human mathematical analysis, possibly computer aided should be rejected outright. Not got much further than a few basic endgames so far, but I think that may be lack of application. I agree, "gameplay" is irrelevant because there's no known correlation with theoretically effective play.
wouldn't finding a "complete half forest" for the game require you to complete the entire tablebase?
No. I think SF without any tablebase will find such trees for most mates up to about 6 deep on my old PC in under an hour by selective forward search. (Can't swear to it but that's a different story).
I could be misunderstanding you because I have not heard the term before
Yes, sorry. I made it up.
is that basically saying you only have to parse down the game tree (from start) until you find a string of moves that will lead to a win for either side?
The whole game tree is not searched to the same depth, but you need to find winning responses for every opponent reply.
the only amount of solved games (forced mate without playing BAD moves) are 7-move Tablebases, an entirely minuscule portion of the games possible combination of moves.
Correct so far as publicly available tablebases are concerned. Marc Bourzutschky has produced a small fraction of 8 man DTC tablebases, but not much foreseeable prospect of solving the starting position by tablebases this eternity.
A zugzwang is a position where the side with the move loses because they must move. The initial position isn't a zugzwang. There's no doubt about that in MY brain. Inferior brains do exist .....
Yet there are also superior brains, or other brains that have more or different information. The "I am superior so I must have the the answer to this question and all those who have other ideas should shut up" argument can elicit nothing but derision.
... but not many.
Well said sir. Er... wait .... I made a typo.
A zugzwang is a position where the side with the move loses because they must move. The initial position isn't a zugzwang. There's no doubt about that in MY brain. Inferior brains do exist .....
Yet there are also superior brains, or other brains that have more or different information. The "I am superior so I must have the the answer to this question and all those who have other ideas should shut up" argument can elicit nothing but derision.
It's such fun though, causing derision in lesser brains. It just proves they're lesser brains ... after all, they're the ones who are so pompous that they can't stand their ideas being challenged.
You certainly are and you always have been! 
If you could discuss ideas and so forth instead of setting yourself up all the time, it would be pleasanter but maybe less fun.
i love how tygxc is still acting like basic calculation errors havent been found, multiple times, by multiple people, in his "logic"
and its still funny how he still is refusing to acknowledge the basic errors he makes in his claims that we somehow KNOW that chess is a draw.
he still cant even wrap his head around the basic concept of parity
@9184
Meanwhile debaters here still fail to understand the difference between ultra-weakly,
weakly, and strongly solved, and how one is not needed for the other.
Meanwhile 104 perfect games, all draws.
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104
@9184
Meanwhile debaters here still fail to understand the difference between ultra-weakly,
weakly, and strongly solved, and how one is not needed for the other.
Meanwhile 104 perfect games, all draws.
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104
That's just nonsense, tygxc.
It's some jargon intoduced by people who haven't got the right idea in any case. People hide behind jargon and there's no need to understand the difference, once it's understood that their ideas are irrelevant. This is because:
So-called strongly solved is an impossibility, mathematically proven to be so on here. All possible permutations of legal moves? As well as taking millions of years it's completely pointless and also meaningless since those permutations would also have to be stored somewhere. That's the real problem and as for retrieval, just forget it!
As for ultra-weakly solved, that's just a guess. I think it's acceptable at this stage to claim that chess is definitely a draw with best play. Others don't. I think it's acceptable to make that claim, especially since I worked out *scientifically-based" ways of supporting such a claim, based on trends and causality.
That leaves weakly solved. Whatever you claim, it actually consists of making judgements to prune the tree of permutations in order to reduce them to an acceptable volume. No way has been found to do that and the pronouncements of the three grandmasters are therefore so much nonsense. It would need algorithms which are far more powerful than anything existing yet.
Hence, there's no point anyone even trying to understand the nonsense that Shvesnikov came up with, except as a lesson on how not to proceed.
Prof. Van den Herik was the world's authority on solving games.
GM Sveshnikov was the world's authority on engine analysis.
There is no need for 3 grandmasters:
in the ICCF finals we have 17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days/move.
@9188
104 games where both participants play optimally.
For the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value of a draw against any opposition: follow an ICCF WC draw for as long as possible and then proceed with an engine and an ICCF (grand)master at 5 days per move until a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached.
@9188
104 games where both participants play optimally.
They drew, therefore their play was optimal.
Dysfunctional thinking - all you can legitimately justify is some sort of uncertain belief that they played optimally.
There is absolutely no question that both participants are unable to see far enough to avoid the horizon problem. And where both are unreliable, the combination of both of them is unreliable.
In addition, when one game gives you uncertain information, more than one game cannot give you certain information - merely less uncertain information.
Some day you need to learn about uncertainty rather than living your life blind to reality. I recommend E.T. Jaynes - Probability Theory: the Logic of Science.
@9175
Of the 10^44 legal positions only 10^17 are relevant to weakly solve Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.