Chess will never be solved, here's why

@9225

"The problem is doing the calculation to get to table base positions."
++ It does not matter how the move sequences from the initial position to the 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition were generated: with with 1 or more computers,
by praying to Caissa, by dark magic to summon the spirit of Capablanca...
If a sequence ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition,
then that justifies all black moves as fit to draw, but not all white moves as unfit to win.

"The table bases only offer a modest reduction in the size of the problem." ++ Yes. But modern computers plus human ICCF (grand)masters can now bridge the gap between the initial position and the 7-men endgame table base, exactly as GM Sveshnikov predicted.

"there have been decisive games between top players in recent years."
human (grand)master + engine > engine > human grandmaster
In the 2024 Toronto Candidates' tournament there were average 1.1 errors per game.
In the ICCF World Championship finals there have been decisive games: every year fewer and now none. They now have reached perfection. If some alien intelligence would have access to a 32-men table base, then it could not win a single 5 day/move correspondence game against an ICCF grandmaster with engine as now competing in the ICCF World Championship Finals.

"if two agents play a game with the the same rules twice and don't get the same result"
++ 17 agents (ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days / move) played 104 games with the same rules and got 104 draws. Not a single decisive game.

Yes but deductive proof isn't available regarding whether chess is innately a draw, so ty attempts to give good arguments for it and it's up to the individual as to whether they're found to be compelling arguments or not. You can't defeat them by calling them (attempted inductive arguments) "sloppy" and then producing something sloppier. What's the point of that?

@9233

"deductive proof isn't available"
++ Even that. The white advantage is 1 tempo. 3 tempi = 1 pawn. 1 pawn is needed to win.
The white advantage is not enough to win. Chess is a draw.

It's another inductive type of argument, yes. To be deductive, the premises have to be proven but yes, it's a good argument and was considered sufficient in other times. Maybe in saner times, who knows?

You consistently leap to conclusions without even being aware of the uncertainty that is obvious to someone with basic familiarity with such things.

How detectable do you think one blunder in 1000 games would be in your sample? After engaging your brain and reassessing do you think you are in a position to conclude from your sample that the error rate is zero rather than one per 1000 games?

The problem with interpreting inductive evidence as a proof (as you have done) is that 1000 can be replaced by 10^6 or 10^9 with the same point being made about the uncertainty of inductive reasoning.

If you choose to ignore such a simple point, you are clearly committed to being foolish.

yeah this confirms you are stupid.

your logic is literally "1 tempo isnt enough to win because 1 tempo isnt enough to win"

you dont get to make up the value of the starting position LMFAO

hey tygxc, why cant you strategy steal 1. NF3 ?? you claimed every position could be strategy stolen, so why arent you providing this very basic example. remember you claimed EVERY STARTING POSITION could be strategy stolen, so you HAVE to provide a perfect proof

I'm sorry but I can't disagree because I don't understand it.

To be fair, it's old chess wisdom. I'm totally sure that chess is a draw with good play by both sides. Also I'm sure it's impossible to prove me wrong.

The argument about tempos is potentially faulty since it depends how you use the tempos. For instance, 1. g4 is supposed to be near to losing. Another mis-spent tempo and it would lose.

I prefer my own argument, concerning the trend towards equalisation in that white's extra tempo is gradually anulled with good play by both sides. The argument is that there's logically no way to reverse that trend, since either side can go on playing good moves. There is no point where either side is zugzwanged since a bad move has to be played to allow the zugzwang. There are too many potential permutations of chess moves available for that ever to be disproven. Such a proof itself would take trillions of years on a very fast computer, not that it exists. You could cut that down to billions of years by splitting the lines over 1000 computers, of course, so I suppose someone could live that long.

Yes, it is extremely likely that chess is a draw. The probability is so close to one it is reasonable to be certain. This is not the same as proving it, of course!

If I may use a loose chess analogy, it is virtually certain that Carlsen would beat a 100-rated tyro in a chess game. But he has not beaten him unless he plays a game against him and wins.

Yes. A deductive proof is impossible to achieve so far as I can see. Then again, we don't have a deductive proof that gravity exists since all our theories about how gravity relates to the masses of bodies and distances between them is merely observation.

We don't have a deductive proof about anything in the natural world (only about models of it). Proof is restricted to the abstract.

Solving chess is abstract, so could have a proof, but it just happens to be impractically complex.

The thesis that no win exists in chess without there being a blunder to cause it rests on the idea that every won game can be seen to result from a recognisable blunder. If ever there were to be a won game in which no recognisable blunder may be spotted then that would blow apart the idea that chess is always a draw, given good moves by both sides.

Thus chess is exactly analagous to the situation regarding gravity, if no situation has ever been experienced where massive objects fail to be attracted to other massive objects by means of gravity.

Although I agree with your opinion, it is also impossible to prove you right.

That doesn't matter.

It takes it out of the children's arena and makes it more interesting.

As I pointed out, it's no different from being able to prove gravity is right except that gravity is a far simpler concept.

I wish I could understand whats going on here with all these thousands of paragraphs. Gravity? really?!. how the hell did it come to the gravity

Sorry I used gravity as an example of something else we believe we know.

If carlsen can still play to enjoy, i definitely can play to enjoy and so the “solution of chess” doesn’t matter