Chess will never be solved, here's why

Presumably because they have been better than average at avoiding problems with the post in the prelims.

It's not harder if the chip exists for the former and not for the latter.

Show me a chip that does integer operations at better than 100 billion per joule. (Which is available for floating point operations).

NVIDIA GPU chips are the state of the art.

If you compare the best Intel and AMD CPUs, you will find the performance is substantially lower. There are technical reasons for this due to the objectives.

tygxc why arent you addressing the fact that unless you mathematically prove that an algorithm is perfect you cannot use it as mathematical evidence of any solution?

Specifically, on floating point and integer performance, here are stats for what is currently the highest performing CPU you can find, AMD's $10000 premier offering:

It just about manages a trillion integer operations per second, and only slightly fewer floating point operations, but it uses 350W to provide that! A state of the art NVIDIA GPU is orders of magnitude more energy efficient in flops/watt.

Different engines - are you sure?

It seems likely that they're all using the strongest engines available - which would be the same list for everyone. Stockfish, Komodo Dragon, LC0, Berserk, etc ...

What I mean is, nobody has some mystery engine that's stronger than any of these. There isn't an ICCF competitor who's using some unknown "AlphaOne" engine or something - some advanced algorithm that defeats Stockfish 10 to 1 in equal conditions ...

Instead they're all using the same engines - which means they're all stuck with the same limitations.

Unless we are to assume that today's engines have reached the end of the line ...

Both your positions are already weakly solved by time efficient algorithms (tablebases - either DTM or DTZ50) for both basic and competition rules. The absence of 50/75 move rules doesn't prohibit that because there are a only finitely many positions.

The whole of chess is strongly solved, but by inconveniently time inefficient solutions.

It's the time element that is under discussion.

ngl mar ur comment may be pretty confusing/misleading unless they know the context better. ur making it seem as if we already know it, not that we know the algorithm to obtain it.

The algorithm is the solution.

The time efficient algorithm is, "look up the position on the syzygy site and play the top move". It's a lot quicker than going through the tablebase generation process, but that just makes the latter a less time efficient solution.

The definitions of solutions should include the maximum time (or complexity) for the algorithm to complete as a parameter. As it is the tablebase generation algorithms and the minimax algorithm, without time limitation, both satisfy the definitions that you can generally find of weak solutions (and could be extended to strong solutions). There is usually some vague accompanying text about time, that could mean anything, but it's not included in the definitions.

As the lawyers like to say, "time is of the essence".

There are so many chess positions than atoms that can be solved, thus, no matter how complex the game may be, the game will always be solved. As I demonstrated before, applying the 50/75 move rule with other chess rules you get a chess game where it will always be solved. There is a difference between the true end of this game and the game being solvable or not. This forum is eating your time, chess can be solved, however, it is impossible to achieve the true end of this game. There is no need to discuss, chess is solved.

Chess can be solved, it just doesn't have a way that construct the truly perfect game of all time. It doesn't matter what you play, you will always play to a win, a loss, or a draw. Fortunately, chess has the 50-move rule which makes the longest game not go infinitely, without the rule, chess can't be solved, but in this case, it can. So regardless of what you play, the 50-move rule will always limit your expansion, making this chess game finite, this kind of board game doesn't last forever, which the nerds had already proven the longest chess game mathematically possible, you can only play 8848 moves (chess will be solved under or equal to 8848 moves). This makes this chess game finite, so there are always ways to solve any position, but finding the true end, the end that requires extreme computer power to make the best move to construct a perfect game, is impossible, just like in life there are no real objectives but there are ways to solve things like math, financial crisis, etc,...

@VerifiedChessYarshe Here is something to note:

Ultra-Weakly solved means knowing whether the game will be a win for white, black, or a draw.

Weakly Solved means knowing an algorithm that can ensure a win for one player or draw against whatever the opponent plays.

Strongly Solved means knowing an algorithm that can produce perfect play from any position.

@14291

"These players are rated below 2000 OTB"
2 are IM, 1 is FM, average age is 60, average FIDE peak rating is 2152.
Over the board requires different skills: tactical calculation, strong nerves, good memory, physical stamina to concentrate for several hours...
ICCF requires time, patience, diligence, positional understanding, long term planning...
The players and their engines complement each other.
Seconds of over the board top players usually are weaker than the grandmaster they help too.

@14293

"chess has the 50-move rule which makes the longest game not go infinitely" ++ the 3-fold repetition rule also ensure a finite game: the number of positions is finite and you can only reach these 3 times or 5 times.

"without the rule, chess can't be solved" ++ With only the 3-fold repetition rule it can be solved as well. In the ICCF WC Finals 3-fold repetition is a major drawing mechanism.

"finding the true end, the end that requires extreme computer power to make the best move to construct a perfect game" ++ Is now being done in the ICCF WC Finals: 113 true end draws in 113 games in average 40 moves, long before the 50-moves rule would matter.

for a discussion mostly revolving about computers playing chess, i'm surprised none of you have seen the computer championship that's going on rn https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship

#14296

3-fold repetition does not ensure a finite game. Some positions that don't have checks make this rule ineffective.

In such positions, 3-fold repetition will only work after hundreds of continuous shuffling. The 50-move rule is the only and only way to ensure a game will not go that long, that's why the longest chess game mathematically is 8848 moves.

There is no true end for chess. Soon, some computers will eventually replace Stockfish, millions of lines may be lurking in the shadows, waiting for our intelligence to find it and do even more crazy stuff. There is no true end.

@14291

"They download the games and have some program run a batch process on it to see if their setup disagrees with any move, and if so, they try to repeat that opening?"
++ Do you have the same low opinion of the seconds of over the board grandmasters who prepare the openings of their grandmaster?

@14299

"3-fold repetition does not ensure a finite game"
++ It does. Finite number of positions can only be reached 3 times, hence finite.

If you reach all possible positions that are possible and then choose a position and repeat it 3 times, would you think you will do it?

The 50-move rule makes the game shorter than 3-fold.

where are the y axis labels

@14286

"nobody has some mystery engine that's stronger than any of these"
++ The humans make the difference.

'Why, in your opinion, do you manage to show outstanding tournament results, gaining a big plus in strong competitions? - General chess culture.' Interview with the late 3-times ICCF World Champion Dronov

'The notion that correspondence chess nowadays may be all about an arms race can also be mitigated if you stick to the better approach. Of course you need a relatively modern computer to do the dirty work of refutation for you but in my opinion it is rather pointless to invest in more hardware in order to make a difference. How many ideas can you interactively throw at the computer in one hour is the key question you should ask yourself when trying to decide exactly what to invest in.' interview with ICCF World Champion Langeveld

"today's engines have reached the end of the line"
++ Engines will keep improving: what they do in 5 days now, then can do in 5 hours, 5 minutes, 5 seconds in the future. However, they cannot go below 0 error / game.