Chess will never be solved, here's why

Just so you know. By using the definition you linked no games where the second player wins by force (like tik tak toe on a infinite bord) would count as solved.

Is that a bad faith argument, or do you not realize that disagreeing anout the definations of what constitute weak and strong, is not the same as disagreeing about what a solved game is?

Just so you know. By using the definition you linked no games where the second player wins by force (like tik tak toe on a infinite bord) would count as solved.

I am familiar with ultra-weak solutions that use the strategy-stealing trick. For hex, this gives the value of the initial position but it does not give the value of most other positions. So this is NOT your number 2 (which is what I corrected).

I have had to read alot more then i belived i would when I entered this discusion.

When we say hex is solved it relies on formal logic. That is statements that has to be either true or false . The sentence "the light is on" might be true or false, but "the light is either on or off" = always true, while "the light is on and off" = always false.

Chess has no such proof, you have just played alot of games, and then assume since all of them end in a draw there can not be a win, but that does not follow any formal logic, its just the five leged dog again.

Here is the proof for hex being solved.

1) there is no draw in hex.

This we can prove by contrediction. That is we assume a draw could happend and then show that leads ro a contradiction so that must be false.

Since no player has won that means all hexes are occupied by one of the players, and since no player have won there have to be a hole in both the players continius lines. But that can not be the case becouse if one of the players have a hole in their line the other player would have a continius line going through that hole.

2) there is no zugzwang in hex.

In Hex, each move places a stone on the board without removing or moving previously placed stones. This means each move incrementally builds towards completing a path. The concept of zugzwang does not apply directly because each additional move provides further progress towards creating a winning path, rather than potentially forcing a disadvantage.

3) since there is no zugzwang, and no draw player number 1 can always steal player number 2s strategy. That is player number 1 can place any pice randomly, wait for player two to do their move and copy their strategy. And sice player number 1 always Will have one extra pice on the bord player 1 Will always win.

So you see, hex is solved becouse it logicaly can not be any other way. Even though we dont the algorthm for winning. While in chess we have just had alot of realy powerfull computers play a huge amount of games, but there is still nothing that prevent the possebility that an even stranger computer might find a winning strategy in the future.

How do you figure that? From the ultra-weak definition? The "first player" clause of ultra-weak solutions has survived since August of 2002, through 654 edits. So...if you don't believe it, join the "talk" tab and try to change it.

You might want to read this first though...

"In combinatorial game theory, the strategy-stealing argument is a general argument that shows, for many two-player games, that the second player cannot have a guaranteed winning strategy. The strategy-stealing argument applies to any symmetric game (one in which either player has the same set of available moves with the same results, so that the first player can "use" the second player's strategy) in which an extra move can never be a disadvantage. A key property of a strategy-stealing argument is that it proves that the first player can win (or possibly draw) the game without actually constructing such a strategy. So, although it might prove the existence of a winning strategy, the proof gives no information about what that strategy is.

The argument works by obtaining a contradiction. A winning strategy is assumed to exist for the second player, who is using it. But then, roughly speaking, after making an arbitrary first move – which by the conditions above is not a disadvantage – the first player may then also play according to this winning strategy. The result is that both players are guaranteed to win – which is absurd, thus contradicting the assumption that such a strategy exists.

Strategy-stealing was invented by John Nash in the 1940s to show that the game of hex is always a first-player win, as ties are not possible in this game.[1] However, Nash did not publish this method, and József Beck credits its first publication to Alfred W. Hales and Robert I. Jewett, in the 1963 paper on tic-tac-toe in which they also proved the Hales–Jewett theorem.[1][2] Other examples of games to which the argument applies include the m,n,k-games such as gomoku. In the game of Chomp strategy stealing shows that the first player has a winning strategy in any rectangular board (other than 1x1). In the game of Sylver coinage, strategy stealing has been used to show that the first player can win in certain positions called "enders".[3] In all of these examples the proof reveals nothing about the actual strategy."

You know John Nash? The guy from "A Beautiful Mind"? That's the guy you theoretically need to disprove to remove that statement...

If only you understood the actual meaning of "argument from authority". The logical fallacy is about using a call to authority *in lieu* of any real argument. It doesn't mean that consensus cannot be mentioned, or that established authorities cannot be linked or referred to. Instead, you use your mistaken notion of what it means to justify your usual "I don't need to do any research or pony up facts, my opinion is just as valid as yours regardless of supporting evidence or authority" point of view...which falls right in line with crackpots and conspiracy theorists of modern times.

Since O lies constantly he assumes others do too and therefore 'doesn't believe'.
The reality of Elroch and Dio not needing to lie and therefore not doing so constantly goes over his muddled head.
Its part of his massive projection problem.
Also - O's position that 'science is a belief system' muddles him even further -
very possibly he would deny various sciences because of a further crazy construct by him that its about whether he 'trusts' or not. In other words that its about him. Delusional - but transient and poorly organized.

Wow! This is a very large forum. I do not know if chess is or will be solved.

I think the logic against the strategy stealing argument is very weak because they are not comparing like with like. Nevertheless, although it doesn't look like a proper argument, it should be obvious that there cannot be a forced win for black in chess.

I would say that the "strategy-stealing" argument is an incorrect devive that these people use. It's mere noise, like saying "with a puff of purple smoke, the understanding that there's no forced win for black is vindicated".

I don't expect you or Elroch to understand what I'm talking about.

I just played the first over the board timed slowplay classical controls game I've played for five years. I won with black in board one in a Summer League. I may even post the game and you can weakly solve it.

...

I would say that the "strategy-stealing" argument is an incorrect devive that these people use. It's mere noise, like saying "with a puff of purple smoke, the understanding that there's no forced win for black is vindicated".

I don't expect you or Elroch to understand what I'm talking about.

...

You make it obvious you don't, so you're probably right.

I would say that the "strategy-stealing" argument is an incorrect devive that these people use. It's mere noise, like saying "with a puff of purple smoke, the understanding that there's no forced win for black is vindicated".

Yes, you would say that. In fact you did.

This is a statement about what you would say that reveals several important things about you.

• Firstly it reveals that you don't understand the reasoning known as "strategy stealing"
• Secondly it reveals that you show a lack of respect for those who do understand this
• As an extreme example, it shows you have woefully inadequate respect for John Nash, a widely acknowledged genius who won the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for economics
• Your inappropriate lack of respect extends to the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, and articles based on that literature
• This lack of respect reveals extreme arrogance, of the narcissistic variety

I don't expect you or Elroch to understand what I'm talking about.

What you are saying is very easy to understand. It is equally easy to see you are wrong,

Interesting that you are so similar in character to Diogenes innit?

Why should I lie about anything? I don't need to. You, Dio and Elroch are the ones who habitually lie and you do it because you're insecure. Narcissism and dishonesty are both symptoms of psychopathy.

I'm now sure to a high degree of certainty that you and Dio are one and the same. Although you take pains to try to appear different, there are three things that show you to be the same person. One is word patterns and word useage. The second is behaviourap patterns. The third is more subjective. It's my understanding that it would be very unlikely that two people who are both crazy in that they take vanity to ridiculous degrees and also paranoia ditto, would get on with one-another. It is certain that if you were different people, your vanity and basic insecurity would cause you to clash with each other.