Chess will never be solved, here's why

hey opt, how about you answer the extremely basic and falsifiable question instead of childish insults? surely if you had any sort of, worth, you would have addressed it?

Elroch, you seem to keep forgetting that optimissed has likely never covered, or completely forgotten abstract math language of any type, and because of his narcissism, will choose to not try to understand it because he cannot accept the fact that someone would know something he doesn't. I can predict with almost complete certainty that optimissed will fail to understand the concept.

his claim that an infinity's magnitude needs to be "Assessed" to determine differences is literally self contradicting. The infinity is literally the magnitude. in addition, it's not even true of even non-infinities.

its funny how he claims no infinity can be countable when there is literally a class of infinity called "countable infinity". the fact that optimissed's language includes "Elroch believes that the infinite can be counted even though "infinite" literally means "cannot be counted", since finite means countable." means that he has no understanding of infinities or what it means for something to be "countable".

While maths uses precise language, the vagueness of @Optimissed's language is an issue. He is very likely using "countable" incorrectly as a synonym of "finite". It is likely that he never has understood or even known the correct definition. To my knowledge, he never clicks on a link like that to fix the inadequacy of his basic knowledge.

@13470

"Only if you want to ignore reality"
++ You are the one who ignores reality. With unlimited thinking time the unguided engine reaches the depth to find the forced checkmate.
Thus the error rate at unlimited time is zero. So you fitted the wrong curve.
You should fit a curve with an asymptote error = 0 at time approaching infinity.

The 17 ICCF World Championship finalists at 5 days/move would play this endgame perfectly even without table base or computer. Troitsky did and he had no computers.
It is no coincidence that the late GM Sveshnikov first asked for good assistants and only then for modern computers. Give me five years and I will solve chess.

"Thus the error rate at unlimited time is zero. So you fitted the wrong curve.
You should fit a curve with an asymptote error = 0 at time approaching infinity."

the curve was determined by the datapoints, he didnt choose the curve to fit his argument. also, the curve you propose is literally what you are trying to argue as the truth, so thats a circular logic fallacy.

the whole point is that our machines arent programmed to approach chess with mathematical certainty in every position, not that our current machinse cant be modified or made powerful enough to achieve perfection in some positions, or all positions if set to analyze the whole table base. but thats not what the engines do.

Sveshnikov never mentions the word "solve". he says "close". hes not talking about any mathematical solution, and you would realize that had you both:

a) any understanding of mathematical proof. b) read the article you cite.

I mean playing strength, in terms of engine analysis. The ICCF competitors are all almost certainly using the top engines available - which means all the players are performing at the same level.

Which means that draws are practically inevitable.

I don't believe human playing strength matters at this point, due to how high engines have climbed.

A 2300-rated human won't have anything to offer, in terms of chess understanding, to improve the playing strength of a 3600-rated engine.

Just as a 1500-rated club player won't have anything to offer, in terms of chess understanding, to improve the playing strength of Magnus Carlsen ...

Now to be fair, I do believe chess is a draw. So if that's your argument, then I completely agree with you. It should be a draw, anyway - that's how the game is designed. Both players should begin on equal footing. Otherwise, the game would be flawed.

But I don't consider ICCF games to be proof that chess is "solved". I consider them proof that humans using top engines will draw against other humans who are using the same top engines.

It's ... not exactly a surprise outcome ...

theres a thing where russians reportedly have reduced hardware but played well, although during the timeframe where it was confirmed that russians had reduced hardware (ie the timespan of the interview tygxc cited) russians played considerably worse.

@13526

"The ICCF competitors are all almost certainly using the top engines available"
++ Different engines, different tuning, different hardware (the Russians have worse hardware because of sanctions, but nevertheless 4 of the 17 finalists are Russian), different time per move (50 days per 10 moves, but one may take 2 days on a move and the other 10 days).

"I don't believe human playing strength matters at this point, due to how high engines have climbed." ++ 4 Russians qualified for the World Championship finals, despite worse hardware.

"A 2300-rated human won't have anything to offer, in terms of chess understanding, to improve the playing strength of a 3600-rated engine."
++ 'the key is planning, which computers do not do well — Petrosian-like evaluations of where pieces belong, what exchanges are needed, and what move orders are most precise within the long-term plan.' SIM Jon Edwards wins 32nd World Correspondence Championship

'How many ideas can you interactively throw at the computer in one hour is the key question'
'It takes chess wisdom to escape with a draw even though Stockfish and co have calculated 2+ scores most of the middle game.'
Interview with ICCF 26th World Champion

"chess is a draw" ++ Yes

"Otherwise, the game would be flawed." ++ Losing Chess and Connect Four are first player wins.

A member of our local club is an ICCM (international master) with a rating of 2530. He was awarded a championship for managing to get two wins out of 14 games, the rest being drawn. Otb I would assess his strength as somewhere between 1450 FIDE and 1550.

In my understanding, regarding a proof that chess is drawn with good play by both sides, they are looking in the wrong place. It's necessary to try to reproduce strategies which could, conceivably, produce a forced win. Therefore they should be looking at games of around 200 moves where white concentrates on keeping the pieces on where possible and useful and also on making one-step pawn moves to produce complex positions where a zugzwang may be possible. I regard the idea that black has a forced win to be immaterial since first it's necessary to look at these positions from the pov or one side or the other to see if the concept is viable. I don't think it's viable but that's what they need to do to make any possible progress.

@13530

"strategies which could, conceivably, produce a forced win" ++ They try to win, but they draw.

"games of around 200 moves" ++ After average 39 moves it ends in a draw.

"white concentrates on keeping the pieces on where possible and useful and also on making one-step pawn moves" ++ They concentrate on the best possible moves, and draw.

"the idea that black has a forced win to be immaterial"
++ White has the initiative, an advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn, not enough to win.
Each further move dilutes the +1 tempo advantage, so the advantage gradually evaporates.

"what they need to do to make any possible progress" ++ They try to win, but draw.

Tell me about it.

@13525

"there is great uncertainty where this is"
++ No, when the thinking time reaches depth 2x, a checkmate in x is found with certainty.

It's basically the same as @tygxc trying to solve chess.

I accept the strong probability or better that what you are saying is true. No problem.

Possibly you would do better to completely ignore the trolls and see what happens. Although I have to say, they seem so dim that they will probably ignore the fact that they're being ignored and continue to ask rhetorical questions, such as "we're waiting for the deductive proof". They aren't very bright so it might be better to ignore them, though.

Syzygy can play the endgame as a whole perfectly under competition rules

how do u know that ?...has a/o ever ran a check on ziggy ?...do we have some value software on it ?

i ran a 10-ply (opening game) against shannons 69+x10^12 report. I got 54+x10^12. still tryn2figure out their parametres. whos right ?...probably them. but some vfyn software still needsta be run right ? [ty github, stack OF ]

Countable is not a synonym of infinite. Something that is not countable may not be infinite. However, the infinite cannot be counted, since it's literally "not finite" and therefore it is not countable since only finite numbers exist as countable.

It's often difficult to tell when you're trying to deceive people and when you are just being honestly but extremely dim. Both possibilities are very real and may even occur simultaneously.

I believe I mentioned that I do not regard you as being what I would call a clever guy. Really, your opinion and those of your supporters, regarding that, are of no value.