Chess will never be solved, here's why

Not quite happy with that proof.

Consider a game played on a chess board. White has an adequate supply of white draughts and Black has an adequate supply of black draughts.

The first player is determined by tossing a coin and starts by placing one of his draughts anywhere on White's first rank and thereafter each player places one of his draughts on any free square on the next higher rank until the top of the board is reached when the next player continues on the first rank. The game is won by any player who places a draught on h8 which immediately terminates the game.

(OK, I probably shouldn't patent it.)

Suppose G is a game where two players alternately place pieces on a finite board without them ever being removed, with each player playing identical pieces of a single colour

yes

Suppose that some subset of the positions is defined as winning for one particular side

yes, the positions with a draught on h8 are defined as winning for the player who's draught it is. 

Suppose the winning rule is such that if the board is full of pieces, one or other side has won - I.e. there is always a win or a loss, never an undecided game.

yes, if the board is full there is necessarily a draught on h8.

Suppose the winning rule is symmetrical - I.e. if a position is won for white and you switch all the white pieces to black and vice versa, it is won for black. And vice versa.

Yes, the rule simply says a position with a draught on h8 is a win for the player who's draught it is. If the colours are switched the winner is also switched.

Suppose the winning rule is such that if a position is won for a side, the same position with an extra piece of that player's colour on the board is always won as well (I.e. it is never a disadvantage to have made an extra move).

Yes, the draught is still on h8 (though the position with the extra piece wouldn't actually occur - in any game following your specifications.)

But there is no win for the first player.

That just about sums up he whole problem right there, firstmarch

Thanks for the timely example of the kind of classless individual that tends to dislike my posting.

This is my original account. No abuse, no banning, just a username change. The account closed for abuse is some malcontent troll that was trying to harass me. Heck, could be you for all I know...doesn't really matter.

No, you are definitely the same person. Why lie? There are old forum posts with you being quoted as btickler while appearing as DiogenesDue. The receipts I screenshotted are just a few of many. I don't know what trick you pulled with the name change but maybe you can get banned for ban evasion now. You probably posted some unhinged racist rant, got banned, and can't remember. Maybe get checked for dementia 🤡

It's just not that hard to grasp...

I changed my username. A troll took my now freed up username and began impersonating me. I opened a ticket, they got banned. End of story.

Given that @Richard did the banning, I don't think your "ban evasion" daydreams are going to come to pass...

Nice cover story, old man. You may be narcissistic enough to believe your own lies but you're not that important for someone to take your name and impersonate you. Think about it. Why would anyone do that? People have lives. Keep being condescending and passive-aggressively insulting others in the forums so you get banned for abuse if you go on an unhinged tirade again 🙏

Maybe they couldn't let things go...you know, like you. I have to say it's amusing to see the posters that want to paint me as unhinged be the ones unhinged in their attempts.

No one needs to paint you as unhinged, people probably already know by now from you being chronically online and practically living here on the forums being a resident Scrooge. This thread is years old with 500+ pages about a boring repetitive topic and you are still arguing with people from the very beginning. That is unhinged

Or it is autistic.. I know least 2 people here are autistic

So far here I have only seen 2 actually unhinged people

And what are you doing here? According to you, you are here attacking a boring and unhinged old man with no life on a thread nobody should be reading...lol...what would that say about you? It would imply you are so petty and triggered that you've stooped below the level you are supposed to be making fun of.

You might need to think things through a little better. Any other unhinged rants in your holster? If so, I might have get to them tomorrow.

Don't start diagnosing people from afar like Optimissed does, it gets embarrassing for people to witness.

I'm not lol I doubt your autistic there were just people who said they were already

@10981

"we have 4 cases and 3 definitions"
++ The generally accepted definitions from peer reviewed literature and by the authority in the field of games solving Prof. Van den Herik are:
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

Some trolls try to confuse with their own personal definitions.

An example of ultra-weakly solved is Hex.
Examples of weakly solved are: Checkers (8*8) , Nine Men's Morris, Losing Chess.
Examples of strongly solved are: Chess for up to 7 men and lost castling rights, Connect Four, Draughts (10*10) with up to 7 men, Nim

@11002
"i belive conect 4 is weakly solved"
++ In 1995 Tromp strongly solved Connect Four.
Interesting enough Allen weakly solved it in 1988 by brute force and independently Allis weakly solved it two weeks later with a set of 9 strategic rules, using knowledge.
A Knowledge-based Approach of Connect-Four

This proves that brute force is not the only way to solve a game and that it is beneficial to use game knowledge in solving a game as also Prof. Van den Herik wrote.

For Chess the weak solution can consist of both parts: calculation towards the 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition, combined with a set of knowledge based rules to dismiss stupidities like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? right away instead of wasting computer time on it.

@11010

"it could be solved in many trillions of trillions of years"
++ That would be strongly solving Chess with present technology.
New technology like quantum computing can strongly solve chess sooner.

Weakly solving Chess is now within reach of present technology, as GM Sveshnikov predicted.
The ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals with 106 draws out of 106 games is at least part of a weak solution to Chess.

Those who dislike your postings are perfectly within their rights to do so. because you frequently make personal attacks on others and have always done so, which is why you are considered to be a toxic and malicious person. Also, you are frequently dishonest and known for it. Accusing others, as you do, is deflection. I think you have been muted several times but that's beside the point and isn't an issue either way, given the nature of the bots here.

It wouldn't "really matter" if you behaved well. Even if you were an "only account", the fact that you and Elroch tolerate playerafar's abusive comments is sufficient to discredit you. You and Elroch set yourselves up as pretending to be people who are very keen to see that there are no comments made which consist of "spreading false information" yet neither of you appear to be concerned when someone who obviously supports you, right or wrong, make very many abusive posts. No-one is going to believe a thing you say while the two of you allow that to continue. You may try to pretend that you have no control over "other people", in which case, why would you be trying to control the posts of those you disagree with? It's only because he supports you two that you let his crazy meanderings go. If he were arguing against you, you would both be on his case like a rocket.

You (collectively, Elroch and Dio)) are very keen to "correct" tygxc when he, in your view, "goes wrong" and you both frequently pretend I'm mistaken, confused, doddery or whatever, when I make arguments which you would find very difficult to counter: and that happens extremely frequently. You would at least rescue SOME credibility if you put an end to player's malicious ramblings. It's clear that whoever it is who inhabits player's profile makes things up and has zero concern for telling the truth.

There are four trolls here who are basically ruining the thread. One of them is NOT tygxc. He generally behaves well and is at liberty to place his opinions here even if "we" disagree with them. There may be only three trolls here if two of them are the same person. And RAMTAR wouldn't be doing it if he didn't have support. Between you. you have made this thread toxic and unpleasant for decent people and you are setting a VERY bad example to younger people.

"Weakly solving Chess is now within reach of present technology, as GM Sveshnikov predicted." just here to remind people that this is false and sveshnikov's quote was taken out of context.

@11033

Human input was also used in weakly solving Losing Chess:
'the above search procedure was augmented by human input'
'interface that allowed the user (namely myself) to choose what
upper-level node in a given tree to expand next'
Losing Chess: 1. e3 wins for White

I know I've said this before - but 'weakly solving' is very poor terminology.
It could mean just about anything - regardless of how established its meaning might or might not be in relevant professional organizations.
-------------------------------------
As to the FirstMarch account - the posting style looks familiar.
And when a certain account whose name begins with O - is getting more and more desperate then we might suddenly be again and again seeing these new names jumping in. Like 'take take'. And somebody adding an 's' to my account name.
---------------------------------------------
Regarding Dio changing his name from a previous name - so what?
That's interesting that somebody took his previous name and tried to exploit that. Something for people changing their name to consider.
-----------------------------------------------------
And as for O trying to label Dio as a 'psychopath' there's zero evidence of any such behaviour in Dio's postings.
In other words O who is @Optimissed - lies yet again. He does so constantly.
But he doesn't want members new to the forum to be aware of it.
O's constant asserted projections of his own behaviours - are also a form of lying. And he does other lying also.
Does anybody care other than him?
'Caring' should be distinguished from 'having preferences'.
Whatever those preferences might be.
They're quite different although with some overlap.