Chess will never be solved, here's why

Unfortunately, broad-brush Keynesian influence (inside the American Political Establishment) peaked during the Kennedy Administration, and since then has (unfortunately) continued in slow decline.  Not that Keynes, and the indigenous American philosophical movement of Pragmatism, developed by Pierce, James, Dewey, and Richard Rorty didn't have lasting intellectual influence. Indeed, American institutional economists basically "invented/developed" the GDP accounts, which served as conceptual and data-based backdrop for Keyne's General Theory, and animated his concept of activist fiscal policy -- pursued by the FDR Administration to help "lift" the U.S. and world economy out of the Great Depression. WW2 defense spending also contributed to an upswing in growth (and deaths, unfortunately).

Future economists now mostly need Masters Degrees in Mathematics to successfully navigate a top-level Ph.D. program. Unfortunately, modern Neoclassical economists know little of their own subject matter history. And they prefer it that way. Math still intimidates many into submission. Some thinkers, not as much.

Hang onto your hats -- a non-trivial number of nation states are presently hurtling toward a divisive national election with populist authoritarian candidates in the upcoming few years. Let's hope for "the best," however defined.

@12648

"assuming that chess is a draw isn't really the issue" ++ Chess is a draw.

"A complete tablebase, with "Draw" or "Distance-to-Mate" listed for every possible position - now there's the real challenge ..." ++ That would be strongly solving chess to a 32-men table base, not expected before 2100. Not even Checkers has been strongly solved.

However Schaeffer has weakly solved Checkers: it is a draw and he showed how to draw.
Likewise the 116 perfect games in the ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals show at least in part how to draw Chess, and they show not 1, but 5 different ways.

tygxc why are you still dodging the fact that your claims are based on assuming that high probability is considered mathematical proof?

The process is first assuming the probability and then assuming it's a proof lol

hes not even bothering to dispute it lmfao, does he think that everyone that calls out his BS is trolling?

we all know the downvotes are tygxc, he's clearly seen it.

I am not even sure @tygxc understands that Schaeffer's weak solution of checkers could be used in isolation (with no checkers engine) to tell someone with no skill how to draw at checkers against anyone. Right from the opening to the end of the game, every move, every time.

He should be able to understand that even if you had every piece of analysis done by engines in ICCF games, you would scarcely have got started on gathering the information you would need to do that. If you tried to do so, all that an opponent would need to do would be to diverge from the analysis tree at a suitable place, leaving the non-solution powerless to continue.

Tip - if you see a tygxc downvote on a good contributor, you can reverse it.

@12663

"Schaeffer's weak solution of checkers could be used in isolation"
++ Chess is more strategic a game, less calculative.
Checkers resembles pawn endgames in Chess.
See this weak solution of Connect Four: just 9 strategic rules.

"tell someone with no skill how to draw at checkers against anyone" ++ Likewise we tell someone with no skill how to win KQ vs. K, or KR vs. K, and it is not with a game tree.

"if you had every piece of analysis done by engines in ICCF games"
++ If all reasonable white moves are exhausted, then Chess is solved. If black can draw against the good moves, then it is trivial to draw or even win against the bad moves.

Take an example: this position arised in 3 of the 116 perfect games.

There are 32 legal moves in this position.
Only 2 merit attention: 4 Ba4 and 4 Bxc6.
4 Bc4, 4 Bd3, 4 Be2 lose a tempo: black got 3...a6 for free. If the bishop belongs on c4, d3, or e2, then it should have been moved there immediately, without 3 Bb5 first.
4 Bf1 loses 2 tempi for no return.
All other moves lose material.

I see tygxc didnt understand elroch's attempted explanation at all

"See this weak solution of Connect Four: just 9 strategic rules." you should look at it yourself, because nowhere in that weak solution do they do what you claim they do.

they prove an algorithm using invariants demonstrated deductively from axioms. you make subjective statements like "Bf1 loses 2 tempi for no return." and assume that they are absolute fact and treat them as the same thing.

"Likewise we tell someone with no skill how to win KQ vs. K, or KR vs. K, and it is not with a game tree."

by definition a weak solution is a game tree, either derived algorithmically with axioms or calculated completely before hand. it's literally by definition. you're just denying basic reality.

tygxc if you cant engage with us honestly, wtf are you even doing here. you're wasting our time even more than you are already.

The idea that a novice could draw against anyone by following ICCF analysis is hilarious. Here is a guide to how to beat them:

Push your h-pawn until they are out of the analysis they have (this is a very minor sideline that will quickly leave Stockfish's analysis which has branching factor less than 2). Then just use adequate chess skills to crush them. This proves @tygxc does not have a solution of chess in his 116 ICCF games (and all their analysis, admittedly lost in the ether).

@12665

"Schaeffer's weak solution of checkers could be used in isolation (with no checkers engine) to tell someone with no skill how to draw at checkers against anyone. Right from the opening to the end of the game, every move, every time."
++ We can tell someone with no skill how to win at chess against a table base in any KQ vs. K or KR vs. K position and not with a game tree, but with a few logical rules.

We can tell someone with no skill how to win at Connect Four against a table base with only 9 strategic rules.

If we supply a complete book of ICCF WC Finals draws and their recorded analysis to someone with no skills, then that is sufficient too to draw, if complemented with some strategic rules of how to counter unreasonable moves. The book is not yet complete, that is why I say we have a partial weak solution.

@12668

"Push your h-pawn"
++ Now this is hilarious.
Cannot win with 1 e4, cannot win with 1 d4, cannot win with 1 Nf3... then try 1 h4.
Once the draw is established against the good moves, then to draw against the lesser moves is trivial.

"We can tell someone with no skill how to win at chess against a table base in any KQ vs. K or KR vs. K position and not with a game tree, but with a few logical rules."

if it works every time, then by definition it uses an invariants, which create an algorithmic game tree. you truly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"We can tell someone with no skill how to win at Connect Four against a table base with only 9 strategic rules."

again, the invariants algorithmically create the game tree. again, each one of these 'strategic rules' are mathematically proven by deduction from axioms, of which your 'rules' are not.

"if complemented with some strategic rules of how to counter unreasonable moves. "

wow how undefined and vague.

you seem to still completely ignore that for every position that could be encountered from one line, a weak solution by definition proves the exact moves necessary. your subjective evaluations do no such thing.

for example, you still havent objectively defined "no positional advantage".

you dont give the solution for how to deal with it, so by definition your "solution" fails against it. whining and calling it trivial doesnt do anything

first off, you havent even demonstrated that ANY move is winning, losing, or drawing, so attributing a value to something unproven is false.

then--even if it was true--refusing to provide a step by step guide means you dont have a weak solution by definition.

gotta love how tygxc keeps holding on to these "strategic rules" but cant define them oor even begin to elaborate on them. oh wait, it's because they dont exist.

We don't need to keep bolding the word "strong". I'm aware of the distinction between different levels of solving.

That's why I said "for me", assuming that chess is a draw isn't the issue. "Chess is a draw"? Not exactly Earth-shattering. I assumed this to be likely true when I was still a complete beginner.

That doesn't change anything about the game, from a practical standpoint. But a complete tablebase of the entire game? Now there's something that may hold interesting revelations that we can learn from - if it ever comes to fruition.

Although the downside of that, of course, is it would essentially kill chess in any format where assistance is possible (such as online chess) ... which would be rather unfortunate.

The nerdy part of me likes the idea of a complete solution to chess (especially the whole data storage issue, and theorizing ways to surmount it), but the chess-player part of me isn't sure I'd like it at all ...

again tygxc, you seem to be just pretending that your "method" of claiming statistical inferences as mathematical proof isnt still widely known to be complete lunacy. why are you skipping over that. it's very dishonest.