Chess will never be solved, here's why

Just checking back in briefly.
Follow your own advice BC.
And don't make strawmen about 'calm down'. 
You don't know what you're talking about.
If you were thinking this through properly you'd admit to yourself that you're 'new' and you don't know the context and to find out and then think some more about it instead of kneejerking.
---------------------------------------------------------
O has been 'straightened out' by Dio and Elroch about 'perfect information'.
A rare event.
But it'll likely just be temporary.
A while back O was also straightened out by Fester - who told him 'you will address others as your equals if you want good treatment' ...
It worked for a couple of days but then was too much for O.
He even tried to pretend his improved behaviour was about me - not him and Fester. That's how crazy he can get.
-----------------------------------------------------
 'you will address others as your equals if you want good treatment' 
advice most people wouldn't need - but an idea he ignores.
With the consequences. For him.

@9592

"It is necessary to deal with ALL LEGAL RESPONSES to a specific strategy"
++ No. against ALL OPPOSITION, i.e. all responses that oppose.

It is not necessary to present a full game tree after 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5?. We know it loses for white.

We know by logic that 1 a4 cannot be a better move than 1 e4.
So if a way is proven to draw against 1 e4, then a fortiori there is a way to draw against 1 a4.
'It is beneficial to incorporate game knowledge in solving games' - Prof. Van den Herik
'Chess is a very logical game' - Capablanca

@9627

"its impossible to claim that something loses by force until you have accounted for every possible line" ++ No. It is very well possible to claim 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5? loses by force without having accounted for every line.

This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

try again.

lmfao random quotes because you dont have an actual argument. proving a draw against e4 doesnt prove a draw against a4.

@playerafar its pretty clear that "Bigchessplayer" isnt a full adult so please have some kindness in your responses to them

@9615

"I gave the actual definition of Weakly Solved. I don't really care what Herik says."
++ Who are you to say what is actual and not care how the World's authority on solving games carefully words it in a classical scientific paper? That is hubris. If everybody is using his own definitions, then confusion is guaranteed. Is your objective to confuse?

The actual definition is:
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the gamet-heoretic value against any opposition"

"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."
++ No. Game theoretic value is a carefully chosen expression to allow games with more possible outcomes and even games with more than 2 players. It is not my term, it is Prof. Van den Herik's.

'The game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally'

For chess a priori it is open if the game-theoretic value of the initial position is either a draw,
a white win, or a black win.

I gave an inductive as well as a deductive proof that the game-theoretic value of the initial position must be a draw.

Observed fact: 105 games out of 105 in the ICCF World Championship Finals end in draws.
If you dispute that the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw,
then please explain how it could be that all 105 games only contain an odd number of errors: 1, 3, 5... and none (0) contains en even number of errors: 0, 2, 4....

If you dispute that the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw, then please explain how a single tempo could suffice to win for white, or how black could force a win.

If you accept that the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw,
but you dispute that the 105 ICCF World Championship Finals draws are perfect games,
then please explain how all 105 games contain an even nonzero number of errors,
i.e. all errors occur in pairs only and no unpaired error occurs.

You can believe Chess is no draw, or you can believe the 105 ICCF WC Finals' games are not perfect games, but if your beliefs contradict observed facts, then your beliefs are wrong.

The definitions I gave were better and most importantly, less confusing. It was clear during a great many exchanges here that the terminolgy you were using was hindering understanding, including that of yourself.

A move that doesn't alter the value of the game-state is simply a good move. That means that the move is good for its purpose, since no move can increase the value of the game-state. You can't turn a draw into a win with a move, but you can turn a draw into a loss. That holds whether the initial position is dawn with good play on each side or lost for one side.

As soon as you try to introduce Game Theory into chess, you lose perspective and you sacrifice accuracy. Herik was a Game Theorist and so he has no place in solving chess, if it's to be accurate. Those who may have involved him, GMs or not, were mistaken to do so. The result is the things which you believe: that chess can be solved in a few years with three GMs overseeing the moves to be considered by the chess engine.

That is blatant nonsense on more than one level. The proposed time scale is ridiculous and the methodology is child-like. No doubt it's come about due to the involvement of Game Theorists, since Game Theory is necessarily an approximation and basically guess work honed by successive approximations.

If you don't have a good overview, ty, you're going to be misled and the result will be that you will mislead others.

@9682

"The definitions I gave were better" ++ hubris

"less confusing" ++ more confusing

"terminolgy was hindering understanding"
++ terminology maybe, but mainly intelligence was hindering understanding.
For lack of other references I gauge intelligence as proportional to chess rating.
Anyway, for a common word, the definition is what a dictionary says, for a term in some field of expertise the definition is what a publication by an authority in the field says.

"A move that doesn't alter the value of the game-state is simply a good move." ++ Yes.

"no move can increase the value of the game-state" ++ Correct.

"You can't turn a draw into a win with a move, but you can turn a draw into a loss." ++ Yes.

"That holds whether the initial position is dawn with good play on each side or lost for one side." ++ Yes.

"As soon as you try to introduce Game Theory into chess, you lose perepsctive" ++ No.

"Herik was a Game Theorist and so he has no place in solving chess"
++ He was the authority on solving games, including Chess. Please read his paper.
I guess you confuse your notion of Game Theory.

"Those who may have involved him, GMs or not, were mstaken." ++ No, you are.

"The result is the things you believe, that chess can be solved in a few years"
++ I admit I was at first surprised by GM Sveshnikov's claim he could weakly solve chess in 5 years if given good assistants and modern computers.
But he was 65+ World Champion, held an MSc. and almost a PhD. in engineering, and was the world's authority on analysing chess openings with engines, which he taught to grandmasters.
After thinking and calculating I realised he was right.
Then I thought there was a need for computers and assistants and I calculated 3 would do.
Now I realise it is unnecessary: the 17 ICCF (grand)masters with their computers do it.

"++ I admit I was at first surprised by GM Sveshnikov's claim he could weakly solve chess in 5 years if given good assistants and modern computers."

he never made that claim, you just made it up. i read the article, he makes no such claim.

Herik has nothing to do with the argument because nothing he wrote supports your claims.

""The definitions I gave were better" ++ hubris"

the irony of the guy calling hubris when he thinks himself better than literal mathematicians.

"I gave an inductive as well as a deductive proof that the game-theoretic value of the initial position must be a draw."

no proof given, i showed your "proof" to math majors and mathematicians and they all found the same flaws that i pointed out to you. literally not a single person who has a math background takes your claims seriously.

its why theres no mention of any such proof in game theory journals. because such a proof doesnt exist for chess.

I am begging you to actually have some intellectual honesty and look at your fantasy with an honest lens.

@9684

'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.' - GM Sveshnikov

"'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.' - GM Sveshnikov"

yep, thats exactly what he said, and nowhere does that imply thats solving chess.

if you actually read the article, its about theory and strategy.

but of course, you wouldnt bother with those details.

your quote is so obscure and taken out of context that this forum is literally the top result for searching that quote.

its absolutely hysterical that you think that quote is about solving chess mathematically.

truly something out of fantasy.

need i remind you about how your own "5 year" calculation was actually off by a factor of 100 million?

@9686

"no proof given" ++ Two proofs given, if you cannot understand, then that is your problem.

"mathematicians and they all found the same flaws" ++ What mathematician, what flaw?

"i pointed out to you" ++ You pointed out nothing at all.

"theres no mention of any such proof in game theory journals"
++ I provided it here on this forum.

""mathematicians and they all found the same flaws" ++ What mathematician, what flaw?"

you are being purposely ignorant, i mentioned several times that i brought it up to the mathematicians at my university. they actually chided me for wasting my time with someone as ignorant as yourself.

"no proof given" ++ Two proofs given, if you cannot understand, then that is your problem"

i understood it perfectly actually, unlike you, who constantly struggles to understand basic analogies, and cant see their own fallacies even when named in front of them

you falsely claimed a value for tempo and then acted like that value was "proof". when confronted about your lack of justifcation you just said "oh its common knowledge some GM's said this thing"

thats not justification lmfao.

you also falsely claimed a strategy stealing argument, despite the fact that numerous counter examples were brought to your attention. you had to falsely choose blacks moves, when a proof counters ANY of black's moves.

@9688

"'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.' - GM Sveshnikov"

"close" = weakly solve: bring all openings to technical endgames = bridge the gap between the initial position and the 7-men endgame table base.

"off by a factor of 100 million?"
++ No, weakly solving requires 10^17 positions and can indeed be done in 5 years.
Anyway, we now have perfect ICCF games: the ICCF (grand)masters did the job.

I see you are vainly repeating your quote taken out of context, because you dont actually have an argument.

""close" = weakly solve: bring all openings to technical endgames = bridge the gap between the initial position and the 7-men endgame table base."

according to you, and not according to anyone else on the planet. thats your own personal fantasy bud, fallaciously repeating it doesnt change it. you wont be able to find a single person to agree with that.

its funny, all you do is repeat the same fantasy. "oooh chess is a draw because these games are perfect, these games are perfect because chess is a draw, there is no flaw in this logic you guys just dont understand, im tygxc and even when told that mathematicians the world over are laughing at me, i know better than all of them"

"++ No, weakly solving requires 10^17 positions and can indeed be done in 5 years.
Anyway, we now have perfect ICCF games: the ICCF (grand)masters did the job."

you gave a calculation where computers would calculate positions at 99% accuracy at 100 million positions per second. the article you cited actually said 100 million nodes per second to calculate ONE POSITION at 99% accuracy. its funny, i understand your posts better than you do!!!

im willing to bet money you wont address this whatsoever.

at this point ive shared your "logic" to over 100 people, and not a SINGLE PERSON thinks you are making any sort of logical sense. what makes you think you are better than the mathematicians, the math majors, the comp sci majors, and all the other people?

answer.

answer, why do you think you know better than published mathematicians?