Chess will never be solved, here's why

He may be off topic, but he's also the majority of the thread (and other threads on the same topic).

tygxc pretends that it is on topic. I am not here to necessarily argue with him, but to point out to all observers how tygxc's claims are from a delusion, even though tygxc likes to mask his fallacies in authoritative language and unrelated citations.

@tygxc virtually admits that what he is suggesting is that playing chess is solving chess. It ain't even close.

He is going in circles. So if you continue, you are also going in circles. There is no point if he is going to use his stupidity all over again.

'Rigor' is a term accepted in academic mathematical circles and research science and math. Or 'Rigour'.
But it doesn't or wouldn't connect well with laymen new to the forum or otherwise non-academic or non-professional.
It would tend to look like legal formalism.
----------------------
Yes I understand the term. Got lots of math experience.
There's a whole bunch of things that just aren't done in real math and science -
and tygxc's invalid shortcuts are a good example.
Well-informed people here are doing a good job of interfering with tygxc's disinformation.
---------------------
Many people would understand that with real math and logic you've got to do it right.
And its similiar with climate science and medical science and other sciences.
But with science there's a bigger determination and cult-movement to spread disinformation than with math.
Like with climate science denial which is more than a cult - its an Industry.
And with vaccination denial. A horrible aberration of human behaviour partly caused by the internet like its other denier cousins.
----------------
But with tygxc we've got a situation of math and logic denial.
Much much rarer than the major denialisms.
We're not just discussing chess solving here.
Much of the discussion has actually been about math and logic denial.
By ... how many people?
That's right.
But - got to keep it not only polite - but Nice too.
-----------------------------------
Per the moderator.
And without the slightest doubt I say that tygxc - whether intending to or not has been providing 'foils' that learned patient people here have been refuting month in month out - by presenting the real math. And the real chess issues.
To promote that 'real math' - maybe we can use some words other than 'rigor' or 'rigour' or 'rigourous'.
Its just an idea.
'In the real math'. 'how its really done' 'why that's invalid' 'real math doesn't work like that'.
In real math you've got to get it right.
And in math that's easy for teachers and professors to check.
Which is why math exams do a good job and are a good system to find those really more able.
----------------
in the computer projects another 'real exam' is the tablebase projects.
Exam results: the engines can't handle 8 pieces or more.
Struggle. Too much for them.
And if they finally get that ... then 9 pieces.
200 years for that?
40,000 years for ten pieces ... (32 pieces to start a game)
You get the picture.

185- BRO

No.
People decide for themselves what 'the point' is.
tygxc is being more acutely refuted these days.
including because Optimissed has been muted by chess.com and is not here to run interference for tygxc.

Hi again Martin.
Some issues of terminology here.
Like 'engine'.
Regarding 'nodes per second' we seem to agree that if the computer speed doubles - then the 'nodes per second' doubles.
Which would mean that if the computer speed halves then the 'nodes per second' is also halved.
So if the computer speed is a quadrillionth of what it needs to be to solve chess this century that means that the 'nodes per second' is also a quadrillionth of what it needs to be.
The fact that the computer scientists don't talk about ops per second doesn't support tygxc's illogic that it 'doesn't matter' about the computer speed.
----------------------------------------
Of course it matters.
Elroch stated that 'nodes' corresponds to points on graphs.
Another point:
Computer speed is something that anyone entering the discussion can grasp.
'nodes' somewhat meaningless. even 'rigor' is somewhat inappropriate.
Persons very learned in computers such as yourself might argue that people who don't know the terminology well should learn all about it ...
well my point is that to properly refute tygxc's Snake Oil its better to use terminology that everyone understands.
-------------------------------------------------
When Elroch very efficiently blasted Optimissed's ridiculous notion that 'perfect information' should mean the result is known too - Elroch commented on the need to make it extremely clear. After doing so. By commenting that with very long numbers we could know exactly what the number is but does that mean we know its factors? Essentially blowing Optimissed's nonsense out of the water.
-----------------------------------
'Occam's razor' in explaining things - whenever available for the explanation.
If scientists aren't using ops per second in describing their solving project - then to be thorough - they should be.
Perhaps they can't because that might 'interfere with funding'.
But another point is that the terminology 'nodes per second' plays into tygxc's disinformation. So does 'weakly solved'. So does 'rigor' and 'rigorous'.
Over in the forum where climate science deniers falsely try to claim climate science is a hoax - where its their claim - that claim of their's is what the actual hoax is. ...
one of the three principle deniers works the word 'driving' hard.
another works the word 'adapt.
another works the phrase 'doesn't connect'.
He can't even understand that highways connect cities. Tried to claim the oceans are 'too big' for anything to raise the water level.
The point: disinformationers can't afford to go by real science and logic so they have to work the semantics. They'll use every opportunity to do so - like a kind of foothold.

Martin are you saying that 'nodes per second' proceeds the same regardless of what position is on the board?
It doesn't seem palatable or conceivable or logical or realistic that the number of 'nodes' in a position would be the same as another position regardless of number of pieces and complexity.
Nodes in a position would vary from position to position.
Rendering 'nodes per second' virtually meaningless.
------------------------------------------
Can you explain why not Martin?
What formula would you use to relate nodes to amount of material on the board and varying complexity of positions?
Point: the operations per second of the computers available is known.
But the 'nodes per position' varies.
Right?
So how would you relate 'nodes per position' to the 10^44 number?
I have more than enough reason to believe tygxc would hopelessly Snake Oil this. Because he already has - by trying to claim that ops per second 'don't matter'. With such a claim by him being Moon Rocks.
Maybe we won't agree on that Martin. But that's okay.
---------------------------------
Elroch mentioned graphs but I don't think that helps with nodes even if graphs are basic to their definition.
Idea: its not about me. We know that.
Lets try to make it about anybody entering the discussion.
'Nodes per position?' Whaaatttt?

@11718

"Each position where the proponent of a strategy to move requires an evaluation at the very least, or you have no basis for selecting candidate strategy moves."
++ The basis for selecting candidate moves does not matter, as long as the strategy leads to a certain draw at the end. That retroactively justifies all black moves as fit to draw and at least one of the white moves as unfit to win. It does not matter if the black move comes from a deep or course evaluation, from the human ICCF (grand)master or from a dream, or from a Monte Carlo random generator.

"the positions where the opponent is to move do not require evaluations"
++ Indeed, it is enough to exhaust the reasonable moves.

"you need to analyse every legal move" ++ Every reasonable move at least.

"there is no adapted engine that will do the analysis"
++ There is no need to adapt an engine. The existing engines do it in the ICCF WC Finals.

"they are all designed for playing" ++ They are also used for analysing.

"While the state space for chess with a drawing rule is enormous"
++ There are 2 drawing rules: 3-fold repetition and 50-moves rule.
The 3-fold repetition rule is a major drawing mechanism and occurs in 37 of the 114 perfect games, more often than a 7-men endgame table base draw claim in 10 of the 114 perfect games.
The 50-moves rule plays no role: perfect games are already drawn before the 50 moves rule would trigger: average 40 moves, standard deviation 11, shortest 15, longest 73.

"this does not make a weak solution bigger" ++ No, it is just the same.

"If you generate a weak solution for basic chess with a drawing strategy for each side, it is a weak solution of FIDE rules chess." ++ You do need the 3-fold repetition rule.

"if chess is not a draw" ++ Chess is a draw.

wow tygxc, where in any of that do you address the fact that your standard of "proof" is mathematically insufficient?

""you need to analyse every legal move" ++ Every reasonable move at least."

i literally gave you the definition of a weak solution, its every POSSIBLE move. you are being deliberately ignorant of basic facts.

everything else in your comment are red herrings to try to distract from your fundamental lack of understanding of math concepts.

@11720

"A 9.2.3 criterion for when positions are to be considered equal for the purposes of 9.2/9.6 can't be taken as an intended definition of position in the FIDE laws." ++ It is the only reasonable definition. In practice it is a FEN without move #. An engine checks the 3-fold repetition rule and the 50-moves rule like an arbiter would do: from the PGN (score sheet), i.e. history.

"A node is something an engine traverses in a game tree and assigns evaluations to as it goes along. They don't come ready evaluated."
++ A node is a branching point in the game tree. As the engine reaches a new branch point, it attributes a provisional heuristic evaluation to it, which changes as it calculates deeper.

"The fully reduced version has no repetitions of the same foliage at different points in the tree, which enormously reduces the number of nodes."
++ A full version with all possible transpositions is impossible.
There are between 10^29241 and 10^34082 possible chess games and only 10^44 legal chess positions, so each position can be reached in about 10^30,000 ways.
Even the position after 1 e4 can be reached in enormous number of ways: hop around with knights for 49 moves, play e3, hop around with knights, bishop, queen for 49 moves returning them home, play e4. Only the fully reduced version makes sense.
Engines handle transpositions with a transposition table.

"Your version with full history applies to the full tree." ++ No.

"An engine keeps the full history only for the game record"
++ It keeps the PGN and/or the string of consecutive FEN.

"it's interested only in the history from the last ply count 0 position"
++ It builds up history i.e. PGN and/or string of FEN from the initial position.

"what castling rights exist" ++ Castling rights, and en passant flag, and side to move are attributes of a position: included in the FEN.

"the whatsit was obviously not part of the node"
++ Adding a provional heuristic evaluation is what the engine does as it visits a node.
Otherwise it is not an engine that can play chess, but a legal move generator.

"full of transpositions under competition rules" ++ competition rule 9.2.3 defines transposition

"I couldn't spot a single up/down mirror image in the whole game"
++ They played a Grünfeld Indian Defense up/down mirror game: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5.

"You wouldn't get a definite answer even if you specified a set time a specific version of a specific engine a hash size and the exact machine to run it on"
++ That is why it is a heuristic, provional evaluation, it changes as the calculation gets deeper.

"Rare in what kind of play?" ++ Rare in reasonable play as represented by master games in a database and rare in perfect play as represented by the 114 ICCF WC Finals draws.

"definition of a process that will result in a solution" ++ The process is the ongoing ICCF WC Finals. The human ICCF (grand)master receives a move. Calculates on his twin 90 million positions/s servers for average 5 days and after thus considering
90 positions/s/server * 2 servers * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 5 d = 8*10^13 positions
he advances 1 ply towards a certain draw.

"a game that doesn't end in an agreed draw in a relatively short number of moves that corresponds with any of them"
++ Look at the ICCF WC Finals. 
This game ends in a 3-fold repetition in 15 moves:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360225

This game ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw in 38 moves:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360155

Agreeing on a draw instead of waiting for a 3-fold repetition is just like resigning instead of waiting for checkmate. Here is an agreed draw in 32 moves. Would you force them to play on?
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360123

"It is likely that some solutions include a significant percentage of positions with many promoted pieces on the board."
++ If you mean promotions to pieces not previously captured then no, that is nonsense.

"That is why it is a heuristic, provional evaluation, it changes as the calculation gets deeper."

unfortunately you only assign 1 node per position in your "calculations".

a whole lot of waffling you do, but it's not too hard to spot the contradictions you make.

ur also ignoring the computational work required to ensure there are no transpositions double listed.

In response to more obfuscation by @tygxc, let me underline the key point that from small samples you can estimate averages, but you cannot draw useful conclusions about extremes (eg multiple extra promoted pieces).

On many occasions he has insinuated that things do not happen in the entire class of optimal chess play (which may involve 10^30 positions - very rough number, but the real one is certainly larger than computationally accessible) because they do not happen in the ~5000 positions in the ICCF world championship (~2 x 10^27 times smaller) or the <10^9 positions in the master database (>10^21 times smaller). There is no such inference even if we pretend that we know these are good samples. Not only can you not exclude the possibility of extreme events, you can't even show that they are unlikely to occur. The situation is very different to estimating averages.

No-one who understands how to reason (even with uncertainty) from empirical data would ever claim such things.

Well ... this clearly suggests that White didn't play the best moves.

Assuming chess is a draw, then the optimal path for White would be to play the moves that extend his first-move advantage as long as possible - thus giving Black the most complications to deal with, and the most opportunities to go wrong.

Obviously, White can extend the game longer than 15 moves while still maintaining equality or better - which proves that this 15-move game was not optimal play by White.

What this implies is that the human playing White was content with a draw, perhaps due to tournament standings, and chose one of the quickest paths to allow it. This further implies that the human players may be manipulating these ICCF WC games to seek quick draws - which even further implies that these games are, unfortunately, not reliable examples of optimal chess.

The human element appears to be tampering with the result, in this case. If we're seeking the objective truth of chess, then perhaps it would be better to remove the humans from the equation, altogether ...

iccf is a awesome example of deep dive study. not quite sure of its value. tho i like ty's enthusiasm. its totally contagious !! luvya ty !

piece eval "explicit' is gonna be really tough. until u get to implied future value per piece (piece includes prawns). now THAT will be tough !...hope AI can help elim the subjectivity.

in the year of our island (2024) $ in value is being mariana trenched via investment bankers. per their findings ? this should help...not vice versa. As AI doesnt really follow chess. it chases $ right ? lets see what happens. in the meantime aprils gotta new bf & were going to lunch.