Chess will never be solved, here's why

@9190

"both participants are unable to see far enough to avoid the horizon problem"
++ There is no need to see far enough, there is only a need to select among the legal moves a move that does not worsen the game state from draw to loss.

You've got the wrong end of the stick, though, regarding the application of game theory to chess. Chess doesn't work that way, since game theory is statistical and chess cannot be statistical, since one variation among trillions of variations could hypothetically reverse the assumption that chess is drawn with good play.

You know, last week I was showing the current British Correspondence Play Champion white's main ideas in the Modern Benoni. We'd played two 20 minute games over the board and I won the first one with the modern Benoni. I blundered in the second two pawns up and it was drawn. The reason I was showing him some of the main variations is that apparently no-one plays the MB in Correspondence chess. He wants to improve his otb ability. The relevance is that the MB is considered nearly unsound, although it probably doesn't lose. The idea that more solid play loses by force is preposterous, as I'm sure you'll agree. So are all the ideas about a zugzwang for black, leading to a forced win for black. Just weak thinking and a lack of understanding of the fact that there are trillions of permutations of legal moves. Even if a forced win were to be found for white, it wouldn't be possible to prove it existed.

BTW I'm sticking to my definition of good play as anything that doesn't lose. A moment's reflection should convince anyone that it isn't circular thinking.

@9192

"Chess doesn't work that way" ++ It does. Read Games solved: Now and in the future by Prof. Van den Herik: there is a large section about chess.

"no-one plays the MB in Correspondence chess." ++ For good reason.

"the MB is considered nearly unsound, although it probably doesn't lose."
++ It loses, already Hans Berliner said so.

There can be no "objectively" optimal play in chess, since that doesn't take into consideration strengths and weaknesses of the players. If any move that doesn't lose is called a "good" move, then that fulfils the definition of good. Again, a moment's reflection will confirm that it holds, provided that chess is not a forced win from the beginning.

Hypothetically, if chess were a forced win, then "optimal" still wouldn't be a useful way to describe the play, since any move played by the winning side remains "good". It wouldn't be possible to define "optimal" as the best moves for the losing side either, since that would depend on the ability of individiuals.

I disagree with your main thesis, Elroch, that increasing the number of games cannot lead to certainty, since certainty is a judgement, rather than a mathematical depiction. If it were a mathematical depiction, a human judgement concerning it would still have to be formed.

Machines cannot be uncertain or certain of anything, unless they're programmed to depict certainty or uncertainty in a human way and according to criteria defined by human judgement. A computer is a machine.

Stop calling him names. You're a troll and everyone knows that. Demonstrate your own ability not to think sloppily before you accuse others.

If you could debate with me without the protection of your little helpers, I'd have some respect for you. Instead, you fill your threads with those who don't seriously challenge you because they're simply happy to be allowed the hallowed presence of your proximity. To me, you are a sloppy thinker.

Of course. You can be certain of anything, without adequate justification. Such certainty can be wrong. Quantified in terms of cross-entropy, this is an infinitely bad mistake. For example, you can be certain that battery acid is a great thing to drink, drink a pint of it based on your certainty and learn that the certainty was unjustified. 

I referred to what could be justified. The relevant class of examples is that that which can be deduced from axioms that are assumed to be true using logical deduction is certain (conditional on the truth of the assumed axioms). In chess, such axioms would be the rules of chess, and a conclusion could be an evaluation of a position as a win, draw or loss. Sometimes this can be achieved, other times not practically. And that is the case for the initial position, as you agree.

wow, funny how you dont address any of what i said in the slightest

none of those games are confirmed to be perfect, what are you smoking?

basically everyone here knows exactly what you are saying, they have just found the holes in your "logic". you are either too stubborn, or too stupid, or both, to admit that you are wrong in so many ways.

the biggest tragedy in all of this is that tygxc's false claims are now starting to show up on google searches, now people are going to be misled.
dont forget how tygxc's ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based off of a calculation error where he claims that for each of the nodes of a computer that performs 1 move per minute at a supposed 99% accuracy, he claims that EACH of the nodes ALL have a 99% accuracy.

hes literally off in his calcualtions by a factor of over a million.

I mean, i have already solved it....

Who do you think created the chess engines that analyse your games on chess.com?

Who do you think made Magnus give up his World Championship title and run away?

Who do you think created this game?

I did!.

alright Tygxc, how do you strategy steal this position, remember, you claimed that ANY starting position can be strategy stolen.

Yes, it was unfortunate, it was pointed out to him all the way through the thread. It's an easy trap to fall into because of course, the inaccuracies don't show up. I don't know about the actual factor involved but I do know that a number of people of which I was only one independently arrived at very different results. Given that the strategy of finding the solution seemed off, I would tend to back my own calculations every time and of course mine were more pessimistic than some others but the difference was huge in all cases.

I hope that came out alright. I just ate some raw chicken by mistake, which was after its sell-by date, so I followed it with a rather large amount of an American whisky called Wild Turkey 81, which I picked up really cheep in an auction a year ago and which I've ignored ever since, after discovering that it's quite nice.

I think he was probably wrong but it's tricky to hold against best play. Even so, on a percentage basis I really enjoy playing it. I was playing the QGD for a while but I really like the MB and I've sort of gone back to it.

If I come across the Herik book I'll read it but my instinct is that he's probably more interested in self-publicity than in honesty. I know what games theory is and I'm aware it's statistical in nature, because it consists of analysing real life situations rather than games, by TREATING them as games.

It means that you have to score outcomes in an arbitary manner, since obviously you wouldn't be doing it if you already knew the balance between all the inputs and all the outputs. The belief that it's accurate rests on the assumption that we know the outputs, which IS circular and very bad thinking. It's rather like successive approximations but it can only be adjusted by translating hypothetical feedback into real feedback and back again. I didn't get where I am today without being somewhat intelligent.

No they haven't.

btw tygxc, evne your example of a position that could be strategy stolen doesnt work either. you forced black to move the pawn 2 spaces when it doesnt have to.

@9204

"If I come across the Herik book"

++ It is no book, it is a scientific article.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527

@9195

"the game state assumes a perfect evaluation" ++ Yes.

"which you don't have" ++ I have the 7-men endgame table bases with their perfect evaluation.
White tried to win, black tried to draw. They reach a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition. Black succeeded, white failed. All black's moves are justified in retrospect.

"What you do have is an imperfect evaluation which is very useful but not 100% reliable."
++ The perfect evaluation comes from reaching the 7-men endgame table base, or a prior 3-fold repetition.

"there have been losses for agents just like those participating now"
++ Yes, but each year fewer and fewer. Now 100% draws.