Chess will never be solved, here's why

Note that this is page 669

Perhaps it would be better: Why can’t chess be solved yet?

And the answer is because today it is still beyond our abilities to develop the appropriate algorithm.

I frequently read figures, which I am not quite sure how they got, where they indicate that the number of possible moves is greater than the atoms in the universe and that due to this complexity there is no current computer that can calculate all possible moves and develop the appropriate algorithm. They even talk about quantum computers and the like.

Well, I have news for you. Chess engines have been used since time ago to calculate all possible moves in some simple endings and generate endgame tablebases containing all possible positions. Yes, all. And you know what? Chess engines continue to use endgame tablebases because no one has been able to develop an algorithm to replace them.

That simple.

The current top engines are unable to play accurately in 6 piece endings (according to MARattigan, I think?)

Regarding algorithms, the problem is there is not much scope for better algorithms. Solving chess involves checking a prodigious number of variations and there's no good reason to believe there is any way to get around that. It's very unlike (most) mathematics where deep structure permits extremely efficient proofs of huge results.

so then a 6-piece ending isnt really solved right ?

No, tablebases solve them.

The Syzergy tablebases strongly solve all 7 piece positions in a tiny 18 terrabytes (over 20 positions per byte, via very efficient compression).

and guess what ?...chess can be completely described. trust me. its just out there waiting to be discovered lol !

top engines are unable to play accurately in 6 piece endings

so its the engines not playing best. ok.

Yes, others have observed that solving chess is mathematically trivial and practically impossible. The only obstruction is the amount of computation.

if u put 99 bl balls and 1 wh ball in a rabbits hat ?...the chance of pulling the wh ball out in the first 50 tries is ~69%...maybe.

ur math aint mathing. many ways to show that it is 50%. some are simpler, some are more profound

heres an easy yet very profound to understand way, especially if you think the order you pull out the balls matters.

lets look at the chance of pulling out black balls, one by one.

first ball: 99/100, Second ball: 98/99, Third ball 97/98,... the 49th ball would be 51/52, and the 50th would be 50/51. . multiply those together, and as you can see, the numerator of the Nth ball is canceled by the denominator of the N+1th ball. this leaves only the denominator of the first ball and the numerator of the last (50th) ball, which is 50/100.

another, simpler way to look at it is the balls are randomly arranged in two rows of 50. one row of 50 is chosen. there is a 1/2 chance that the white ball was in the row you chose.

now, the estimated probability of there being a white ball assuming the first 50/100 balls were black is a very different thing. still pretty easy to calculate with a program tho.

There may be infinite chess positions, but you only have to get into the tablebase with the best moves or, much more simply, into a move repetition.

Unless you have significant improvement anywhere in that line, or you think White can somehow win the position in the end, chess is a draw.

meggy try this:

100

Σ 1/n

n=51

probabilities of independent events are multiplicative not additive lmfao.

Newsflash...running Stockfish into one dead position is not a proof of anything.

well, i think the better term would be "non exclusive" events rather than independent for the layman.

iows, in theory ud pull the white ball on ur 63rd try. which is 1/ln e...i think.