Chess will never be solved, here's why

"The remainder descended further still into personalised dribble. Did you come here to show off your accomplishments? Is so it would have been better had you not behaved like a troll in your own threads for years by attacking those disagreeing with you. You are not an exceptionally intelligent person and no-one need take you the slightest bit seriously at all, except maybe those who feed off you. You are VERY much out of your league and I think sometimes that realisation dawns on you."

The 'O' guy talking about himself again while trying to pretend its about somebody else.
He winds up being 'below' everyone else's 'league'.
His unhappy masochism and 'little thunder'.
He's still foolishly furious that Elroch blocked him.
Dio also blocked him too. Long time ago.
He'll get his 'little anger' up about that too.
He's in his cycle ...

Do you rely on people who feed off you to back you up? Sure seems like it.

My son has a 1st class MMath like you; but yours is in stats. That was always the refuge of less able mathematicians. He has a Physics PhD. You don't. His was acquired by mathematically representing magnestism in terms of fermionic spin. First time ever. In doing so he made discoveries of novel states of matter, which had to be backed up by others who would do the mathematics holding his variables as constants and vice versa. He's a very able mathematician in a way that you are not and if he thinks it's impossible to represent chess mathematically, that's good enough for me to think he's probably right. He was one of the brightest mathematicians in the UK of his generation. You are a statistician and you don't know what you're talking about.

We've been through the idea of representing chess mathematically before now and at that time you showed that you didn't understand what is meant by that.

It would involve representing chess as a series of equations which depict all outcomes. You are attempting to assert that a series of partial depictions of simplified aspects of the game are what is being discussed. If you had any intellectual honesty (you make it clear you don't) then you would not misrepresent what is meant by asserting that a trivialised application of game theory fits the bill. You may assert that it's non-trivial all you wish.

Your behaviour to tygxc shows up well enough who and what you are. A person whose only means of arguments are via misrepresentations and personal abuse. It is not worth my time to respond further to your autoritarian, childish crap.

"It is not only possible to represent chess mathematically, it is easy and it is extremely well-known that chess is a well-defined example of a finite combinatorial game of perfect information"
Elroch is correct.
I was suggesting something similiar.
Chess is close enough to mathematics including mathematics referring to itself.
'Perfect' information.
Absolutely. Perfectly.
But 'solving' is something else again.
The game is Big. Mathematically Big.
Too Big. When you're talking about 'solving' in a total sense.
--------------------------
There are problems in Mechanics that are very difficult to solve perfectly.
Even with 'perfect' information to start.
Like for example four 'perfect' equal masses interacting gravitationally in three dimensions where you know their mass - radius - starting 3d coordinates - starting velocity (which is more than 'speed' - includes the 3d vector) - perfect vaccuum - no other influences .... can the future positions of the four masses be calculated at the end of time t?
if they were approaching each other in 2d at perfect right angles to each other - probably.
But not the case in the exercise where they're coming in obliquely to each other ... no neat angles and in three dimensions. No 'coplanar'.
Can you 'solve' for time t?
Can you calculate if any will collide with each other in the first 'pass'?
Or will they pass each other and then move away?
Or be drawn back in?
Point: even with 'perfect information' I think you'd find that many of these can't be solved.
Elroch probably knows a great deal about that exercise - maybe even computers making 'extrapolations'.
Even with just two masses approaching each other obliquely -'aiming' above and below each other - the lines defining their trajectories are not straight lines - they're 3d curves. Tough!
Each curve would not fit in any plane.
---------------------------------
'the guy' mainly personalizes. 'His son.' 'You'. 'IQ'. 'League'. His obvious narcissism. He doesn't really discuss it.

There is something I should point out to clarify. Critics of ty (and I'm also one) very often make the mistake of failing to understand that when "proof" is being discussed, there are several viable alternative meanings of "proof". You claim to be a trained scientist, Elroch, so you should know that a scientific proof is not the same as a mathematical proof. It's possible too that a mathematical proof is in a different class from a logical proof, because maths uses a more advanced type of logical manipulation of givens.

So my understanding of "proof" is informed by my training in philosophy, which allows for a broad spectrum of understanding. A mathematician's proof is essentially a logical process consisting of syllogisms which demand knowledge of mathematics itself in order to execute them, whereas proofs in formal logic can be done using symbology or the more cumbersome verbal symbolism which I myself prefer since in any case, all proofs have to be rendered into verbals at some stage.

Anyway, ty is being criticised for his "weakly solving" which inevitably cuts corners. Yet the mathematics you claim fits the bill and/or is a "non trivial example of game theory applied to chess" is no different in type from that which you condemn ty for using. The point is that it isn't accurate. All game theory is necessarily a simplified depiction, the inputs and outputs of which are scored using successive approximations to get it to fit the bill for known inputs and outputs.

That isn't what is meant by "depicting chess mathematically". It's merely what you are attempting to depict and accusing me of knowing no maths is merely your feeble attempt to push through an argument from authority by getting third parties to believe that you are an intelligent guy.

If they believe that, they'll believe anything and so it wouldn't matter what conclusions they come to. Those conclusions have no effect on reality.

There are many things that might never be 'solved'.
Some will say 'never say never'.
Some things can be proven to have no solution ...
like 'solve for the greatest prime number' ...
there isn't one.
But it is known how many seconds there are in a hundred year lifespan.
There is a first upper bound on the number of possible chess positions.
Its 13 to the 64th power.
That can be cut down some - but not enough ...
at the end - there's too many positions left and too much time to solve each of them.
And starting from 'the end' with two kings and adding - doesn't work either because the task gets too daunting even after adding a ninth piece to the board.
Maybe they have calculated or extrapolated how long it will take the computers to solve for all positions with nine pieces.
There's probably a graph - displaying how the needed total solution time increases with the addition of any of ten types of piece.
Say they can solve for nine pieces in ten years from now ...
does that mean it'll take 100 years when they add that tenth piece?
If there's a tenfold time increase with each addition of a piece ...
but maybe that goes up too.

Thankyou for not mentioning me.

tygxc and Elroch do a lot better than 'O'.
But almost everybody does.
'O' is foolishly sensitive and insecure.
Imagines and craves authority he'll never have.
It means he always loses. Every time.

I know. Everyone's better than dear old "O".

Wonder why that is, since it seems to all intelligent people that it isn't the case and yet it seems to some thick people that it is the case??

Is it that they say things you can understand?

And are you going to be foolishly sensitive and insecure enough to have another of your rants or will you one day learn?

the best argument is a logical one not me bully opponent with a poem if your going to insult people being foolish back doesnt help

yes I'm fully aware that you probably will start insulting me to but I'd rather take the hit than @ Optimissed

If you're as big as you say you are, you could maybe sit on him?

Thanks for your sympathy but it can't be helped and it's only mildly annoying. I suppose crazy people have to be tolerated. The big laugh is that Elroch decided to come here to insult me and this chap is riding on his coat-tails. Elroch doesn't know what he's talking about either but he hides it better.

A false claim.

Yes, this is awful but I'm going to have to agree again with you.

A member of our chess club is the current British correspondence chess champion, all engined-up. We played the other week and I got a win and a draw. He wasn't allowed an engine.

Having looked at ty's assessment of 1. g4, I can't agree it's definitely losing for white. It could be but .... it may not be and I think it probably isn't.

I gave the actual definition of Weakly Solved. I don't really care what Herik says.

Your "game theoretic value" hedge is just there to allow you to pretend that a draw is the default result and that a forced win would be an aberration.

The only explanation of making a statement that is simply wrong is that you are using that technical phrase without having learnt what it means.

If you take the time to learn what the phrase means, you will discover that for chess it means that both players are fully aware of the moves that have been played so far (and which determine precisely what legal continuations are possible).

Thank heavens something I can disagree with. I don't rate Herik either so I don't care what he says. I don't like the hiding behind jargon like "game-theoretic value" because it seems deliberately misleading. We know it's a game and yes positions can be evaluated but not by theory so it's misleading. "Positional evaluation" is one of many much more descriptive tries. I just prefer "evaluation".

However, it seems that since there's no proof that chess is anything but drawn and since it seems to be the case that it's drawn, is it then so bad to allow "draw with good moves by each side" to be the default or probable value, subject to further confirmation?

I understand what it means and I know that there are those who agree with me and disagree with you, just as there are those who agree with you and disagree with me.

I'm not yet going to look at the definition given.

Perfect information means that we have all the information that it's possible to be given and that none is hidden. I'm saying that definition is open to criticism if perfect information doesn't lead to perfect knowledge and if there's no practicable way in which it can be made to do so. I'll now see if that's what your definition gives. I live in a world where not all definitions consist of perfect information, whereas you clearly don't. Must make life so easy for you.

My carer just came in from work, after working late, so I need to make her coffee first. She's beautiful, really.