Chess will never be solved, here's why

the most int part (AI is gonna help IMMENSELY here) is reeval-reassign every pieces value as the game goes - correctly ! btw do we have the 1st 20-ply completely described yet ?

I haven't been following this thread closely, so I wasn't aware you were talking about someone on this thread, specifically. I was just roleplaying the common "I'm smarter than you all, but you're all too dumb to see it" persona that we all see so often on the internet. But now I see who you meant.

To be fair, it appears that a lot of members here seem to be at each other's throats over this debate ... maybe there's something about the topic that gets everyone riled up.

@12598

"the result of the positions to which you referred would become CERTAIN if they were weakly solved" ++ No. If they were ultra-weakly solved. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is a white loss, ultra-weakly solved.
1 a4 is a draw just like 1 e4, but 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 by logic.
It is unthinkable that 1 e4 would be a draw and 1 a4 would be a white win.

@12604

"In the context of solving chess, saying 2.Ba6 is lost for white is neither important nor even interesting." ++ 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? can be pruned without even 1 ply of calculation.

@12610

"ICCF GMs have solved chess" ++ The 110 draws of 110 games in the ICCF WC Finals are at least part of the weak solution of Chess.

"Look at this game, it was a draw, perfect chess is a draw, therefore this game was perfect, therefore the players have solved chess"
++ Look at all 110 ICCF WC Finals games, all draws, not a single decisive game, therefore chess is a draw, and these games are perfect, and constitute at least part of the weak solution of Chess.

@12609

"We don't have the first few ply solved, but we have solved the last few ply (EGTB)"
++ We have 110 redundant chains of average 39 moves that link the initial position to the last few ply (EGTB).

@12604

"do we have the 1st 20-ply completely described yet ?"
++ We have 110 perfect games of 39 moves average i.e. 78 ply linking the initial position to known draws. It is redundant, but not yet complete.

‘Would you say that a ticket in a 1 in a quadrillion lottery could not win? If you answer that it could not, you need a refresher in epistemiology.’

this analogy is faulty because in the lottery, the possibility of winning is slim yet absolute, while the possibility of white winning or even drawing after blundering its bishop is absurd. or iow, the possibility may not exist at all.

That's true

Show us against SF16.1.

(If you win as Black I can post you an example that doesn't - two if you like.)

express what as a probability? the possibility or our state of knowledge about it?

you make no sense. i’m talking solely about the possibility.

The probability about our state of knowledge about it is know:0 don't know:1.

But re making no sense, I can show you that not winning as Black after 2.a6 is definitely possible. You seemed to claim otherwise.

maybe i wasn’t clear enough, so i asked gpt to rephrase..

Probability vs. Possibility:
• Lottery: In a lottery with odds of 1 in a quadrillion, each ticket still has a non-zero probability of winning. The event of winning, while highly unlikely, is still within the realm of possibility.
• Chess Game: When White blunders a bishop, the chances of White winning or even drawing can be effectively zero if the blunder is decisive and assuming perfect play from the opponent. The possibility of White winning may not exist at all if the position is completely lost.

All Black has to do is resign, so the possibility obviously exists.

If you're asking if Black has a forced mate then it can be a matter of probability if the timeout rules, for example, are in force.

interesting. please show me..

are you being funny?

Not very.