Chess will never be solved, here's why

So tygxc is wrong about the universe too.
He's giving Big Bang dimensions.

Nobody has ever proven there's not other Big Bangs out there or that there is and probably nobody ever will.
Because you'd have to prove that you would see them from inside this one.
tygxc doesn't understand about unknowns in math and science - or pretends not to.
He wants something to be true because he or his guru says so.
But that's not so either.
Never will be.
Is this 'being nasty to tygxc'?
No. He's proud of making his sweeping generalizations - almost all of them wrong. And getting reaction.
And I haven't namecalled him nor have I accused him of trolling.
Nor lying. 'pretending' seems to be a 'fun and games' he wants to play.
Its what he wants to do. And does.
Is there even one thing he's been right about yet?
Only that chess can't be solved with current technology.
That might be the only one.

The phantom down arrow clicker has been working overtime for the last few pages, but, curiously, several of the posts show -2. We seem to have acquired another.

a : Even if the game of chess was solved by a super super calculator that calculated all the possible moves from the starting position to the end knowing by memory, it would not change much for humans because their capacities are too limited in terms of memory and even position calculation for it to be really relevant to them.

If we say that the chess equation is a draw this doesn't eliminate the fact that as humans we rarely manage to play a perfect game without errors and in the end there won't only be draws.

b : For the game of chess to be solved we have to create this super super calculator but since nowadays the strong bots are already stronger than humans, in the end there is not much point in creating this super super calculator and so in the end the game of chess will not be solved.

@12216

a : "all the possible moves from the starting position" ++ It is not necessary to calculate all possible moves: only 1 black response to all reasonable white moves is enough.

"their capacities are too limited in terms of memory" ++ It is not necessary to remember all moves, it is enough to remember some true rules derived from the solution.

"as humans we rarely manage to play a perfect game without errors"
++ In the ICCF World Championship Finals there are now 114 draws out of 114 games.

"b : For the game of chess to be solved we have to create this super super calculator"
++ The 17 ICCF World Championship Finalists are now weakly solving chess with their 17*2 = 34 servers of each 90 million positions/s at average 5 days/move.

whether the universe is finite or infinite

infinity is a magnitude right ?...notta scalar ?

Searching through more ICCF WC games for the sake of this debate is a rabbit hole that I don't really have time to plunge into. I only glanced at the one because you posted it. I still have my own chess to work on, as well as non-chess-related responsibilities, too ...

Though, the "chess is a draw" argument isn't a contentious point, for me. One of the first chess books I read, as a beginner many moons ago, declared that chess is likely a draw from move one. It was a statement that I accepted as logical and surely true (otherwise, what would be the point of the game? Both players should start on equal footing, otherwise the game wouldn't be fair ...).

My contention is with using ICCF games as the measuring stick. I consider this dubious, especially when such games are steered by fallible humans, who are relying on engines which, history has shown, will be considered weak and inaccurate in a few years' time. These are two negatives that should, ideally, be scrubbed from the equation.

We can't remove engines from the equation, unfortunately, as they are the strongest chess entities we have to measure by. But we *can* remove the humans from the equation.

This is why I suggested tournaments between top engines, in which their "contempt-for-draw" parameters have been set to maximum. This would imply that the engines would try everything they could to avoid drawing - thus removing the issue I've raised about human competitors possibly seeking safe draws due to tournament strategy.

Of course, this would lead to many losses.

Over time, though, as engines continue to march toward theoretical perfection, the number of draws would inevitably rise, as well. If, eventually, all the games are drawn - even with the engines trying everything they can to avoid draws - this, then, would be far more compelling evidence than any human-piloted games ...

i learned chess by playing it backwards. it started like this:

Chess is not some game designed by Milton Bradley or Hasbro...chess evolved, and if it is "fair" that is a matter of evolution, not intent. Obviously "fair" seeming games are more popular in the long term versus games with obvious advantages for one side. That does not mean that chess is a forced draw with best play. Nobody knows if it is a forced draw, and proving whether it is or not is not going to happen in time to have any effect on this thread...

Lola makes some good posts.
Regarding 'infinity' many people react poorly to the concept of infinity.
Even some learned people.
In an example - one person tried to claim that infinity is a term in mathematics but that it doesn't apply in reality.
------------------------------
Which is ridiculous.
What would cause somebody to reject an infinity of anything as impossible?
Human nature.
People just don't like to think of something or anything or a 'collection' of things as just stretching out forever with no limit.
Such thoughts could trigger defense mechanisms of various kinds.
------------------------------------------
Similiar to the defense mechanisms that trigger the Craziness of Geocentrism.
26% of Americans want to believe that the sun goes around the earth - that the earth is the primary.
Its a kind of group-hysteria-narcissism.
They can't accept the reality that earth is just another planet.
Its in one of the spiral arms of a galaxy - and there are trillions of galaxies with new ones being discovered constantly ...
--------------------------------
People don't want infinity to exist.
Infinity is something you can't totally see though.
You can't eat it or taste it.
You can't swim in it or burn it. Nor can you hear it or get an electric shock from it. 
Nor can you use it to play the stock market nor to get laid or paid nor to shut up the neighbor's dog.
Point: to prove there's infinity - how would you experience that or measure it?
You can't.
But you can't prove there's not.
Which is why claiming there's no infinity is false.

intuitively at least, if you scratch your nose, you deliberately put your finger in an infinite number of different positions.

tygxc why do you continue prattling on about "they try to win"

how would the ICCF even know what trying to win looks like under perfect play??

the iccf discussion is a fallacy, you know this and everyone else knows this. it's too late for you to not look like a complete fool, but if you want to save some dignity than you need to take a basic mathematics course, preferably at around the middle school level.

also tygxc, when are you going to admit being wrong about your physics claims?

I like that one Martin.
'Arguers' would claim though that there are 'quanta' of space - so you put your finger through a finite number of 'quantum' positions.
I'm not claiming that though.
'Quantum' could be claimed if an arguer wants to claim that a moving particle is in 3 places as it crosses 'demarcations in time and space'
It 'winks' from existence into non-existence and back into existence again.
I would prefer to give that a Wink and ... a smile.
With no call made on my green telephone.

As to when tygxc might do that - then we could get into discussions of 'infinity' when it comes to large periods of time.
There's an infinity of time stretching out in front of us.
Even if I were to premise the false claim that the universe will run into universal Entropy in a finite amount of time. Because entropy always moves forward.
Which would still allow passage of time after that.
But the way to blow that Eddington and Entropy stuff out of the water is to just point out that infinite cosmic eggs around to explode infinitely in the future.
Adding new energy and pre-entropy ingredients.
'Open universe' blows 'closed universe' out of the water.
Its like a shell from a heavy cruiser hitting a wooden yacht.

I like your unusual thinking. I have often pondered on the general question of what the present state of the Universe (or some part of it) tells us about its past, and what it tells us about its future. Both clearly contain uncertainty which surely increases with temporal distance.

In all cases, the information we infer about the past (or future) is tiny compared with the information that would be needed to describe it in detail.

Humanity doesn't know the 'state of the universe'.
So Elroch's post is mispremised.
Humanity only knows a bit about the part of this particular local Big Bang that we can see from here.
The assumption that this particular Bang that we happen to be located in - "is the universe" - causes a lot of illogic.

@12221

"I don't really have time" ++ Fair enough, nobody has any obligation.

"chess is likely a draw from move one" ++ It is.

"what would be the point of the game?" ++ Connect Four or Losing Chess are first player wins.

"My contention is with using ICCF games as the measuring stick" ++ The ICCF World Championship Finals is the strongest chess on the planet, and there were every year fewer and fewer decisive games, now none. They were approaching perfection and now have reached it.

"steered by fallible humans" ++ Yes, most of previous year's losses were due to clerical error, illness, hasty move, dubious opening choice.

"engines which, history has shown, will be considered weak and inaccurate in a few years' time"
++ At 5 days/move and with a human they now have reached perfection.
In a few years they will do the same in 5 hours/move, 5 minutes/move, or 5 seconds/move,
but they cannot drop below 0 error/game.

"We can't remove engines from the equation, unfortunately, as they are the strongest chess entities we have to measure by. But we *can* remove the humans from the equation."
human + engine > engine > human
The human patches up the weaknesses of the engine in long term planning, strategy, opening selection. Engines do not even recognise fortresses or dead positions. The human is weaker than the engine, but complements it, like the weaker Vainstein helped the stronger Bronstein and the weaker Dokhoian helped the stronger Kasparov.

"This is why I suggested tournaments between top engines" ++ TCEC is between top engines, but not at 5 days/move, and it has 50 imposed slightly dubious openings.

"contempt-for-draw parameters have been set to maximum."
++ It may lead to more decisive games, due to reckless play.
Ros Padilla would have played 13 fxe5 instead of drawing with 13 Bf1.

"human competitors possibly seeking safe draws due to tournament strategy"
++ Tournament strategy was the same in previous years and is still the same in Preliminaries, Semifinals, Candidates and yet these had/have decisive games.

I disagree with all 17 seeking safe draws on the basis of 1 game where 1 player drew with 13 Bf1 instead of going for the possibly losing complications with 13 fxe5.
Here is a game by the same player you accuse of seeking safe draws:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360203

Wow tygxc, way to ignore the fact that ICCF games have literally nothing to do with solving chess as nothing about them is proven rigorously! Would you like to stay on topic?

people will notice that tygxc hasnt ever addressed any of the many refutations.