Chess will never be solved, here's why

It's OK I was just responding in the jocular spirit it was offered.

I take it 10^34 is the number of times you can avoid understanding any of the refutations of what you laughingly call your proofs.

He is of course wrong in one crucial respect.

We need one black move to counter EACH LEGAL white move. You can't legitimately ignore opponent moves based on a zero ply analysis. Such as those moves that give up material or which involve moving a knight backwards or which double pawns. Because such moves are sometimes the best moves. The notion of ignoring virtually every legal set of opponent choices from each position (the amount of ignoring goes up exponentially with depth!) is even more obviously misguided.

@10696

"What do you mean by weakly solving?"
++ There are 3 kinds of solving a game.
'Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition,
and strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.'
Games solved: Now and in the future

The game of Hex has been ultra-weakly solved: the first player wins, but we do not know how.
The game of Checkers has been weakly solved: it is a draw and we know how, but we do not know the outcome of all legal positions.
Chess has been strongly solved for 7 men or less. Strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions is beyond present technology.

@10698

"We need one black move to counter ALL LEGAL white moves."
++ That is purism. It is not imperative to shut down the brain when solving a game.
On the contrary given the huge size of the task all use of game knowledge is beneficial.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? needs no investigation.
1 a4 needs no investigation.
A known drawn opposite colored bishop ending as the ICCF example given needs no further investigation.
A known drawn rook ending as in the ICCF example given needs no further investigation.
Use of a computer does not prohibit thinking.

@10697

"10^34 is the number of times"
++ 10^34 is the number of reasonable positions, derived from 10^37 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured, multiplied by 10 to include positions with 3 or 4 queens, divided by 10,000 on the basis of a sample of 10,000 positions.
Thus 10^37 * 10 / 10,000 = 10^34
Then to weakly solve requires Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions.

No it hasn't. Do you not read the posts?

@10703

"typical 40 legal choices"
++ That is an illusion. There are average at most 3 legal choices that do not transpose.
Proof is by the pigeonhole principle.
There are no more legal chess positions than there are legal chess positions.
I go with the number 10^38 positions without underpromotions to pieces not previously taken, but you can take the whole number of 10^44 legal positions if you want.
10^38 = 3^76 = 3^(2*38)
That means 3 non transposing choices per move reach all legal positions in 38 moves.
Coincidently an average ICCF World Championship Finals game lasts 38 moves.
So 3 is the number and 40 is not.

Now atleast we speak the same language.

Strongly solved means we have a mateix of moves to follow for a result.

Weakly solved means we have a strategy to follow for a result.

Ultra weakly solved is if we have proven that a result should cone given perfect play but we dont know the strategy to acheve this.

But I dont understand how you can say any of these.

Take the chism between clasical and hypermodern chess. Classical chess aims to controll the center with a pawn. Hypermodern chess aims to controll the center with minor pices. How can you say one is better then the other?

You reffere to Machines calculating x number of moves and conclude classical is better. How do you exclude that a machine calculating x^x moves later concludes that hypermodern is better?

@10703

"guessing"
++ Applying knowledge is not guessing.

It atleast have been weakly solved. Imagne a king and rook endgame. We know the strategy for how to win. I dont know if 7. But with fewer pices it become relativly easly for a computer to calculate

@10705

"we speak the same language" ++ Clear definitions are important to avoid confusion.

"Strongly solved means we have a mateix of moves to follow for a result." ++ Strongly solved would mean a 32 men table base, for all reasonable and stupid positions.

"Weakly solved means we have a strategy to follow for a result." ++ Yes, how to draw as black against all reasonable white moves.

"Ultra weakly solved is if we have proven that a result should cone given perfect play but we dont know the strategy to acheve this." ++ Yes, we know Hex wins for the first player, but we do not know how. Likewise we know Chess is a draw.

"How can you say one is better then the other?" ++ We cannot, but if a line to draw for black against all reasonable white tries is found, then chess is weakly solved.

"conclude classical is better" ++ I did not say that.

"How do you exclude that a machine calculating x^x moves later concludes that hypermodern is better?" ++ If I have a system that draws for all x*1 moves, then chess is weakly solved.
There may be other ways to draw considering x*x, but that is besides the point.

@10707

"I dont know if 7"
++ Yes we have 7-men endgame table bases. Work on 8-men table bases is in progress.
Some trolls come up with castling rights and nearly triggered 3-fold repetition or 50-moves rules all besides the question. They cannot come up with a reasonable game that would lead to such a pathologic exception.

Do you have a system that draw for all x ?

StOp SPAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

agreed

By definition If ypu dont have the matrix its not weakly solved? It is ultra weakly solved?

Lets say white has the rook in a rook king endgame. I agree we dont need a matrix for every move white can do, but we need it for the shortest possible win and every move black can do to stall. Now we already have the strategy so I dont think writing the matrix is benifitial, but without it the endgame remains soft solved.

It is when it's not knowledge.

What weird definition of spam do you use ?

Can you at some stage decide which game you're trying to solve and what you mean by a position? You've just been talking about ICCF chess which includes the 50 move rule up to the point that a position is reached that can be adjudicated by a 7 man tablebase and also the triple repetition rule, so 10^44 is certainly not the whole number of positions in any sense in that game; 4.8x10^44 is our best estimate of the number of collections of those attributes of a position that are sufficient to determine forward play under basic rules chess.

You conceded that point already a few pages into the thread, but forgot to update your cut and paste file.