Chess will never be solved, here's why

for example, tygxc claims that chess is ultra weakly solved, and cites van de herik. Van de herik explicitly states that chess is not solved in any way.

the threefold repetition rule shouldn't make things that much tougher.
But the 50 move rule could.
it implies that on each and every position considered - its possible that a move that isn't a pawn move or a capture could instantly draw a game.
Because there could have been 49 ... that's right.
That by itself isn't tough though.
The computer can automatically have a message ('except in other positions where some moves would draw because of The 50.')
But note that such variants would actually be easier to solve since there would be fewer non-draw variants within the position. The position was already solved but the addition doesn't have to be because its an instant draw.
But then there's the issue of 'agreement' versus 'tournament arbitration'.
Both players might decline to claim a draw after the 50 - but the tournament director could arbitrate one anyway.
Such factors make it tougher for the computer to itemize ...
Then there's if its 48 moves ... and so on.
-----------------------
Conclusion: As the tablebases develop they should initially skip three-fold and 50 move considerations -
but include en passant and castling possibilities because those would be much easier to add by arbitration and don't involve 'agreeements and tournament directors'.
Even en passant and castling would not increase the number of positions to be considered - by anywhere near a factor of two.
------------------
The big kid on the block is adding a piece or pawn to the tablebase.
Every time that is done it multiplies the number of positions possible by far over a hundred.
If its a piece or pawn that isn't already on the board - then its multiplying by about 500.
That's why with today's technology it would take trillions of years to work up to a completed 32 piece tablebase.

I like that post.

Do any of you have any theoretical knowledge about anything? Go ask the Google Team at DeepMind, ask the people that made Stockfish. You and ME are not smarter than them, we are not smarter than Cluade Shannon the person who invented Game Theory and 1/2 of computer science as we know it. All of these people have basically the same answer to your question.

The winner for Chess on a 8x8 grid is unsolved for white or black. End of story. Sure the engine today might say +0.27 for white, but for all we know for either White or Black there could be a string of moves from the start that will always lead to a win. Think endgame tablebases, ANY computer knows EVERY GAME with 7 pieces or less, as a result, every position with 7 pieces or less is solved. Its not the computer is playing these positions perfectly, it does not know what perfect is, IT JUST KNOWS WHAT GAME TO FOLLOW TO WIN.

This is what you need a computer to do from the start of the game in order to solve chess. Doesn't matter if you work backwards or forwards, doesn't matter if you use Red-Black trees to cut your pruning time, the amount of data needed to construct this leads to there being more games than even a 1:1 game-byte mapping for ALL THE MEMORY IN THE UNIVERSE. Can quantum computers help? . . . . maybe. Either way if you think you could just slap this into a quantum computer and it will be "solved" you have a fundamental misunderstanding on how quantum computers work. The amount of data needed to solve chess even with a quantum computer is still in the YOTTABYTES.

I don't care about any of your guys weakly or strongly solved of anything, you guys have completely neglected Game Theory so you shouldn't even be using those terms. Every source anywhere with any actual knowledge will tell you this is a Storage Space and computation problem, not a chess problem. If we had the ability to store hundreds Yottabytes and compute incomprehensible number of parse trees then it will be solved. Until then, it isn't, end of story.

This thread should have been dead so long ago

you misunderstand. tygxc is the one making the fallacies you point out, we are pointing those out for him, just as you have. do not mistake our fallacies for tygxc's. plus, we dont need to be researchers to understand the fallacies that tygxc makes. tygxc legitimately thinks that 99% probability is a mathematical proof of certainty.

for example, i was pointing out how tygxc cites some guy to make completely false claims about basic game theory. I know a decent amount of game theory, so I know that hes wrong. but, tygxc doesnt listen to anybody on the forum who points out what game theory actually is. so i cited the guy that tygxc cited.

@12340

"Do any of you have any theoretical knowledge about anything?" ++ Many here do not.

"The winner for Chess on a 8x8 grid is unsolved for white or black" ++ Chess is a draw.

"there could be a string of moves from the start that will always lead to a win"
++ No. here are 116 strings of perfect moves from the start that lead to draws.

"This is what you need a computer to do from the start of the game in order to solve chess."
There are 3 kinds of solved: strongly (like Connect Four), weakly (like Checkers), ultra-weakly (like Hex).

"Doesn't matter if you work backwards or forwards" ++ Strongly solving like the 7-men endgame table base is done backwards, weakly solving like done for Checkers is forwards.

"the amount of data needed to construct this leads to there being more games than even a 1:1 game-byte mapping for ALL THE MEMORY IN THE UNIVERSE"
++ Number of games does not matter. Number of positions: 10^44 legal, 10^38 from 1 box of 34 chess men, of which 10^17 relevant to weakly solving chess.

"Can quantum computers help?" ++ Quantum computers can strongly solve chess by 2100, backwards from 7-men endgame table base to 8 men, 9 men, 10 men... 32 men.

"The amount of data needed to solve chess even with a quantum computer is still in the YOTTABYTES." ++ A strong solution would need 10^44 bit: draw/nodraw.
Synthetic DNA might be used as storage medium.

"This thread should have been dead so long ago"
++ The now ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals now for the first time produces no single decisive game. That shows chess is a draw and it shows how to draw. So this is at least part of a weak solution of chess.

quavotoldmegetit pursuing a classic situation that happens sometimes.
Which is to 'argue' with people who he basically agrees with.
Lol!
QV doesn't get it or not yet that its tygxc with the fallacies.
As for tygxc I rarely read his double cross sign spam.
He basically blew himself out of the water as soon as he started using 'nodes' per second' terminology to push disinformation.
And that was years ago he started those tactics.
--------------------
regarding terms like 'game theory' - while the science of that is apparently both useful and 'key' ... invoking the term itself is like using terms like 'game theoretic value' and 'nodes' and 'weakly solved'.
Just plays right into tygxc's terms.
Since he depends heavily on semantic footholds - when people use those terms they're putting themselves in his office.
------------------------------
No matter how valid and applicable those terms are - its best to put everything in generic terms - even if the generic definition of the term has to be used every single time to avoid the term itself.
The trick is to do that without being too repetitive.
If you're explaining something to somebody about computers - you don't want to be using terms like 'API' or 'script'. You don't want to be posting links to StackOverflow website.
Big business knows this by the way.
When they talk to the public they know to avoid techno-jargon.
The idea is to get the points across.

Unfortunately, you have achieved a fail again. Hint: repetition is NOT a way of fixing that.

I see nothing significant wrong with what @quavoquavotoldmegetit said. He is in agreement with us and the academic community.

@12316

"where an error were to occur the difference isn't going to be 1 ply"
++ I do not say the difference is big, I only say
P(A errs after 5 days to move) > P(Bmisses win after 5 days to move).
If it make you happier then >= is fine too. For the argument it may even be =.

"Straight after a move is made, an error suspicion or an unexpected move would almost never happen due to similar analysis tools and same or less amount of analysis on the position."
Here is an example:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164336 
White made a hasty move. Maybe his servers were allocated to another game,
maybe he had used up his 50 days/10 moves and had to reply the same day.
Black spots the queen sacrifice and white resigns.

"They would have to use more time than their opponent did on their turn"
++ P(A errs|A uses 2 days to move) >= P(A errs|A uses 5 days to move)
P(B misses win|B uses 5 days to move) >= P (B misses win|B uses 10 days to move)

"It doesn't mean double error game probability = single error game probability²."
++ It does.
P(A errs & B misses win) = P(A errs) * P(B misses win|A has erred)
This is basic conditional probability.

So if P(A errs) >= P(B misses win|A has erred) as supported by 2 arguments,
then P(A errs & B misses win) <= P²(A errs)

@12344

"it only even provides suggested moves for around 10000 positions"
++ After considering 10^17 positions.

@12311

"This one is ok."
++ All of it is OK, I quoted Prof. van den Herik verbatim.

Tut, tut - this is a bare-faced lie

So? That's an analysis tree with billions of errors. That's how analysis works. If the moves were all correct you would not need it!

i thought he was calling both sides of the tygxc vs normal people debacle, my bad.

but you didnt. you took one sentence, lied about its meaning, and then constructed a bunch of other complete fabrications and attributed it to herik.

again, tygxc, why arent you understanding the basic fact that 99% ≠ certainty?

it considers that many positions to provide suggested moves yes. simply having more analysis means nothing lmfao.

""The winner for Chess on a 8x8 grid is unsolved for white or black" ++ Chess is a draw."

van de herik says otherwise if you bothered to read his work.

@12350

"this is a bare-faced lie"
++ You are the bare-faced liar
Page 278 1.1 Conventions line 14-18