Chess will never be solved, here's why

@10666

"Those games were all at 5 sec fixed time per move"
++ So you reject correspondence games at 5 days/move and rely on blitz games of 5 s/moves...

"blunder rate at 35 min per move was greater than its blunder rate at 1 sec per move"
++ nonsense

Neither what we can or cannot ask them to do, nor the result in the unlikely event they did it would have any bearing on the correct evaluation of the positions.

The results of a bunch of people playing chess are completely irrelevant to solving chess (even ICCF chess).

In that case you can never realy say you have solved it, because it Will always be a move unacounted for.

@10678

See Figure 2 from 1 s/move to 1 min/move reduces errors from 11.8% to 2.1%.

Not true. I can post you a reliable method of winning any winning KRK position that accounts for all possible opponent's moves but doesn't map every possible move and counter move.

There are many such expositions, though some don't reliably win under competition rules.

@10680

"a lack of understandig for what a proof is" ++ I understand what a proof is.
It is not forbidden to think in proving something.
Use of game knowledge is beneficial in solving a game.

"It just require insanly much more computing power" ++ Solving chess is a huge task.
Therefore it is necessary to remove some hurdles, not invent new hurdles.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? needs no investigation, we know it loses for white.
1 a4 needs no investigation, it is unthinkable that 1 e4 cannot win and 1 a4 wins.
So if 1 e4 is proven a draw, then 1 a4 is a draw a fortiori.

Some opposite colored bishop endings and some rook endings are known to draw, like the 2 examples given. We can trust ICCF (grand)masters on this.
There is no need to burn computer power to prove the obvious.

Sorry for the missunderstanding. I totally agree. We are talking about the same thing. Schematic moves does write out all moves and counter moves. In the same way that in math N*2 writes out every possible even number.

Read the 500+ pages of the thread. You'll see that beside Tygxc, the undisputed king of repetition, Optimissed is a worthy queen. There hasn't been a new idea out of him on this topic for years. Not surprising, since he doesn't understand it from either the math end or the computer science end.

What he does do:

- Complain about the established nomenclature, then make up his own definitions.

- Posit algorithmic solutions when he cannot begin to codify them...functionally no different than a call to magic.

- Claims he knows chess is a draw by virtue of his own experience/playing skill when super GMs will only say "chess is probably a draw with best play".

The situation has not changed. Solving chess is out of reach:

- The number of unique positions to traverse for a real proof is 10^44. There are some theories that this number can be dropped to 10^43 by further pruning. There are no viable theories about pruning 10^44 to 10^17. That's pure fantasy. To do so would effectively mean that only 1 in 1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chess positions would be considered "valid" positions to be checked. Does that sound right to you?

- If you spent the entire wealth of the planet to build a server farm just to process evaluations and left humanity to starve and rot it would still take millions of years to calculate with current technology. If you mined the entire asteroid belt of the solar system to make a storage array, it could not hold the evaluation results. Etc.

- Quantum computing is not able to even touch this problem as things sit; it is not in the sweet spot of things that quantum computing is good for (like cryptography), and there's a currently insurmountable destructive read problem in the way as well even if the quantum computer's instruction set could do the job.

- There's no progress, zero, nada, zilch in terms of building an algorithmic solution that "proves" best play as it goes along. You can prove who will will a pawn race, sure. You cannot begin to prove "best play" in a middlegame. Letting the best engines sit on a position for 5 days (or 50 days, or 500 days) does not prove best play in terms of solving chess.

Your assertion doesn't come from that figure; there's no accurate way of recognising errors from the starting position. The figure doesn't say that, it comes from your big red telephone.

Try going through the games I posted with the Nalimov and Syzygy tables.

@10685

"Schematic moves does write out all moves and counter moves."
++ For weakly solving chess, we only need 1 black move to counter all reasonable white moves.

Yes.

Wow! Tell us what it is!

How excactly do you know 1 a4 is not the solution? Do you take it for garanted that white either win or its a draw? What if white is doomed to loose because moving first is a zugzwang where black just follows a ginormus matrix that leads to the second mover always winning?

@10690

"Tell us what it is."
++ From the ICCF World Championship Finals:
On 1 e4 either 1...e5, or 1...c5, or even 1...e6.
On 1 d4 either 1...Nf6 or 1...d5.
On 1 Nf3 either 1...d5 or 1...Nf6.

That's three. You said you only need one.

@10691

"How excactly do you know 1 a4 is not the solution?" ++ By logic. 1 e4 opens diagonals for Bf1 and Qd1, occupies a central square e4 and controls 2 central squares e5, d5. 1 a4 contributes nothing.

"Do you take it for garanted that white either win or its a draw?" ++ From the ICCF World Championship Finals: 106 draws out of 106 games. White has the advantage of the initiative, +1 tempo = + 1/3 pawn, not enough to win and gets diluted by every further move.

"What if white is doomed to loose because moving first is a zugzwang"
++ It goes contrary to the knowledge that the initiative is an advantage, albeit unsuficient to win. Moreover, any consistent tentative black win can be disproven by strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a black win, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would win for white. If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would win for white.

@10693

"You said you only need one"
++ For each N white moves 1 black move.
So instead of N * N = N² moves N * 1 = N = Sqrt(N²) moves.
That explains why 10^17 = Sqrt (10^34) positions are needed to weakly solve Chess.

What do you mean by "weakly solving"? Is that in any way relatable to the chatolic church "weakly solving" the universe by placing the earth in the center and letting the sun revolve around it?