Chess will never be solved, here's why

Definition of "definition"

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more 
definition
/ˌdɛfɪˈnɪʃn/ 
noun
 
1.
a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
"a dictionary definition of the verb"

Words often don't have exact meanings. Neither are dictionaries or definitions to be always trusted to describe the meaning of words particularly well. Dictionaries consist of compendia of words and real meaning is a blend of defined and applied useage. I shouldn't have to tell that to someone studying at a university.

That is correct, of course. Someone who wants a game tree for that is incompetent. There comes a point, however, around the indistinct borderline between a draw and a forced win, where game trees are necessary: but not for 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6!

actually its literally the definition of mathematical rigor. LMFAO. tygxc showing his middle school math education per usual.

You don't like to talk to me, do you. You know you're no match. Instead, you're trying to talk down to someone who is far more mathematically able than you are, so far as I know. Look, Dio doesn't have a clue about academic subjects. He knows a bit about military communications because he was in the military and a fair bit about computing but doesn't have the logical competence to comment here except off topic. Elroch, meanwhile, is making me wonder what planet he's on. He never involved himself in logical discussion that doesn't look like A.I. and much of what he writes is oblique to arguments which are being made.

Chess can't be solved mathematically excpt via mathematical algorithms which are probability based. Elroch is supposed to be a statistician. You're making a complete fool of yourself. The opinions of Elroch do not count. The opinions of Stannco do count, so far as I can see. Stop copying the losers and try to find out why the situation has changed and tygxc is now "more correct" than they are. Otherwise there's no hope for you.

It should be obvious to anybody who is not seriously subnormal that the question is about solving chess in terms of game theory. If that is currently impossible (it can't be logically impossible) then the answer is simply it can't currently be solved, not let's waffle on about something else instead and call that solving.

And it should also be obvious to anyone not severely subnormal that when @MEGACHE3SE says that the definitions require rigorous proof it means that the definitions include a requirement that solutions meeting the conditions require rigorous proof, not that the definitions themselves require rigorous proof. (Reflect on your second paragraph.)

Before posting on the subject you should understand what solving chess involves in terms of game theory. It's not hard for most people. If it proves to be impossible for you then the answer is simply to refrain from posting.

Yes but he was wrong, since a full game tree for chess from the initial position isn't possible. Does that make you severely subnormal because it's obvious to me that you don't know what's going on? You already pointed out maybe yesterday that you never know when I'm joking and when I'm not.

You probably also think Dio and Elroch aren't suffering any cognitive and/or mental difficulties.

And there is SO much rubbish being talked in this thread and nowadays it's mainly Elroch who's the culprit, apart from your dear self (and now Megacheese), so much so that it's clear something is happening to him. The occasional very lucid post which may be AI is interspersed by lots of single word answers and rebuttals. He tried THREE TIMES to use an analogy of coin tosses to demonstrate why he thought tygxc was wrong to be confident about the 106 games at 5 days per move, which at the moment is mankind's best try for the momentous and vitally important achievement of checking if they still think chess is a draw with good play on either side. He isn't thinking well at the moment and the reason he blocked me and Harbinger from his thread was that a few days before, he was complaining of stress and abnormal heart rate. In my opinion he should not be engaging in the kinds of deception he habitually undertakes on threads such as these. I wish him well but if he's ill, he's brought it upon himself.

MAR wrote:
<<<<And it should also be obvious to anyone not severely subnormal that when @MEGACHE3SE says that the definitions require rigorous proof it means that the definitions include a requirement that solutions meeting the conditions require rigorous proof, not that the definitions themselves require rigorous proof. (Reflect on your second paragraph.)>>>>

Oh dear me.
If the rigorous proof or proofs don't exist then the definitions are wrong. Did I really have to spell it out?

We have only your word for it that << the question is about solving chess in terms of game theory. If that is currently impossible (it can't be logically impossible) >>

is true. That, of course "it can't be logically impossible" is true. I think more than likely it is logically impossible if it is impossible in any foreseeable, practical terms. A computer that can do it isn't on the horizon yet. The software isn't, either. The methodology looks so incredibly complex and expensive that I believe it will never be accomplished. In any case, you don't have a clue what Game Theory actually is, do you. Game Theory is a statistics-based approach which depends on probability and it is completely inapplicable to solving chess because it depends on the wrong sort of algorithm. It would be difficult to explain to a dumdum why it is a different type of algorithm. I'll try to think of a good way to explain it over the next few days because it's an interesting problem. That is, how to explain it is interesting.

@10435

"Game Theory is a statistics-based approach which depends on probability "
++ You confound Game theory (not applicable) and Combinatorial game theory (applicable).

Actually I realised right away.

Solving chess requires analytical algorithms that are incredibly accurate, since it can't be done by creating a game tree.

Game Theory, however, uses statistically based algorithms that are created by modelling processes, scoring inputs and outputs and gradually refining the scoring processes by comparing them with cause and effect in the real world. Obviously that kind of feedback and that kind of process is an approximation and therefore unsuitable for chess. Not accurate enough and would give false results in the same way that present day chess engines cannot be used to solve chess. It's a case of potential massive amplification of error without there being proper checks and balances.

I'm pretty good, you know. I'm even prepared to admit it. It's why Elroch isn't in the same game. Not even a kibitzer.

No, read my explanation. Try to understand it too, rather than thinking you're right on the basis of your incorrect understanding. For practical purposes chess is NOT a game of perfect information. I already explained why, twice at least.

@104

"chess is NOT a game of perfect information"
++ Chess IS a game of perfect information,
just like Checkers and unlike poker, backgammon, Stratego, bridge...

Try it again with the accepted meaning of "game of perfect information" instead of whatever Humpty Dumpty interpretation you happen to come up with at the time.

Draughts (checkers) is analysed and understood, so it's a GOPI.

Consider the chess position after 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. You and I know that it's a clear loss for white and yet there are two people here who aren't sure and who want it analysed. For us, that opening is perfect information since we know we have the information necessary to deduce the result with best play by both sides. For them, the information they're given isn't enough, so it isn't perfect.

Now take 1. g4. For you, that's a loss for white. For me, it's looking very bad for white but there's a chance that the game can be saved. Take 1. e4 ...c5 2. d4 ...cd 3. c3. I think that's a loss for white. I'm nearly sure it is but others disagree. However, black has one and only one possibly winning line. If the informtion was perfect in the sense you mean, it would be possible at least to calculate the result. It isn't possible so the information is not perfect. What we are given is intelligible but chess is too complex a game for the normal definition of "perfect informtion" to hold.

You place great store in definitions and believe those given by game theorists. I think they are wrong because their ideas are inapplicable to solving chess.

Take the two types of algorithm I outlined. You are closer to a workable idea of how chess may be solved than they are. What you believe in is essentially a statistical argument. I find it quite compelling and Elroch used an incorrect argument against it, by comparing it with coin tosses. He seems to believe in a mathematical solution and five years ago I also thought it may be possible. Then, my son, who is a much more capable mathematician than I am or Elroch is told me that in his opinion it's impossible, so I didn't mess around but immediately understood that another path must be found. So far you have come the closest to a viable path. Without clear thinking from the rest of them, they will never make any worthwhile contribution here but will argue endlessly and unproductively, in circles. The idea should be about using our minds to try to find a possible path to a solution. The others here are stuck and will nver find such a path.

The method of playing GM games with computer aid at 5 days per move is a very good method but it's still undertaken on a random basis so it comes as no surprise that the mathematics purists dislike it. I do understand their point of view. A full game tree (strong solution) is not viable, so therefore the only alternative to your approach is by trying to analyse the dynamic structure of chess, recognising its salient features and producing algorithms that can analyse positions more exactly than before, based on principles which have yet to be found.

The math purists don't yet understand this. If previous history is anything to go by, they will understand better in three or four years and continue to tell me that I don't understand a thing. And that is because they are not particularly bright.

You don't have the ability to tell and you are also someone who cannot be trusted to be honest if you could tell. Your opinion is worth zilch.

Pragmatism and experience. I happen to have a good memory, Luvsmetuna.

In some cases such problems are obvious to the untrained eye.

Nobody has ever agreed with your 10^17 fantasy. Not one poster, ever.