Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes, but the human mind can't retain all the info

@12964

"Capablanca was using the word imprecisely too, as a chess player, not a mathematician."
++ Capablanca studied engineering at Columbia University,
but dropped out to become a professional chess player.
Lasker, a PhD. in mathematics, and Steinitz also a mathematician wrote essentially the same.

"There is no empirical evidence to support inferiority of these moves."
++ There is. See Figure 5b and Figure 31 of this Scientific paper. There was no human input but the Laws of Chess. There were 3-4 training seeds of 1,000,000 training steps.

"Chess is almost all about playing moves in positions which are NOT amenable to rigorous calculation" ++ Playing chess is about selecting one move among the legal moves,
using logic when possible and calculation when unavoidable.
Analysing chess is about selecting the reasonable moves among the legal moves.

"when proving a mate in 2 problem (surely stupendously easier than solving chess) is correct, how many of the opponents legal responses to the first move can you ignore?"
++ All of them. Solving a mate in 2 problem is about understanding the idea in the position, not about calculating. There are competitions in problem solving.
One of the best at that is John Nunn, Ph.D. in mathematics.

We're all nerds here, by default. Being a chess player automatically makes you a nerd.

No, I don't believe that Steinitz (who studied just 2 years of University mathematics in the 19th century) or Lasker (who was an accomplished mathematician who contributed a little to the body of mathematical knowledge) ever said anything like you claim. Where is your reference?

Here is a quote from Lasker, revealing a shared aesthetic with my own (as a lesser mathematician who reached around 1 kyu at go in a brief couple of years of enthusiasm - ended to save time and energy!

“While the Baroque rules of Chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of Go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play Go.”

Just think how far tech has come in the last 100 years compared to the last thousands its exponential we cant even comprehend the kinds of things they might be able to do 1000 years from now so hard for me to think we cant even train the bots too see horizon effect yet imagine when someone revolutionizes processors for the 100th time after we have already died made of some rare yet undiscovered element.

@12973

The first real computer was used in the Manhattan Project 80 years ago.
Now quantum computers already are commercially available.
80 years from now they will probably be able to strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base by retrograde analysis.

tygxc you do realize that quantum computers do not just provide a simple blanket computing boost right (note that I know extremely little about quantum computing compared to math/game theory so i could be completely wrong about how quantum computing would effect chess)

quantum computing's main strengths is that it can let quantum physics do the work of large modular calculations/other specified programs. however from what i could look up chess does not follow any of these advantageous programs. it only seems to be useful in table base recognition and collection

We're all nerds here, by default. Being a chess player automatically makes you a nerd.

gratefully accepted !...just wish others would could should.

riiiiiiiiiiight...uh-huh...u just couldnt make 1 dan.

80 years from now they will probably be able to strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base by retrograde analysis.

80 ??...more like 10-20. see ?...were viewing ram & rom thru OUR lens (not AI's). the smartest ppl (like tygex, elrock, opti, and of course Lukey) have a built-in 2.5mm gigs stationed up there that can do humpteen dumpteen FLOPS. and trust me...that eggs moving. sad part ?...as they age ?...theyre infoloss/hr is coming in (and obviously going out lol !) at abt 50%. good part ?...their/our rom is pretty much limitless. if not ?...then wed probably kill ourselves once we reached max cap lol !

thats my dnload. howbout u ?

ohh !...& s/t else. Left-Handed ppl store way more info than RH'ers. cuz their corpus callosum (white matter) in just bigger ! so...explains alot (nanananabooboo lol !). also they say reminiscence bump makes chessplayers (20% LH'ed) best in their 20's.

That's sinister...

Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.

80 years from now?
That's a lot for tygxc.
But 80 trillion years from now might still be optimistic.
If some kind of computer is developed that uses molecules as computer circuits somehow ... perhaps that would reduce computing time to do whatever to a billionth of whatever it was.
But even with that - the numbers would be daunting.
Putting it mildly.
--------------------------
Why?
Everytime a piece is added to a tablebase the number of possible positions is multiplied by about 500.
Ten possible types of piece to be added and over 50 squares available for each added piece. Yes its an approximation.
So adding six pieces would multiply the number of possible positions by over 25,000 cubed.
That's over ten trillion.
So just getting from eight pieces to 14 pieces more than knocks out a speedup factor of a billion - 
That 'molecular computer' would have to do better ...

Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.

I always found that if i looked HARD ENUF i could find the smallest of things in common w/ A/O...even u.

Well, yes, we have innumerable things in common going down to the cellular level. But I would be remiss not to point out that you weren't looking for things in common in this case, you were looking to divide...so I am not sure the back patting is warranted.

We need some more solid and useful results in quantum computing before we venture to say it's going to solve chess anytime soon. It can't even crack an RSA algorithm, and operationalizing chess into a quantum algorithm will be no easy task - it'll need to be a very large algorithm, you're going to need alot of qubits and quantum gates involved... it's extremely speculative at this point to say this will happen anytime soon, or even that it will eventually happen.

How about just molecule gates instead of quantum gates or Bill Gates?