Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes, but there's a difference that still applies. Once over "3500" in the computer realm, the ability difference may manifest in terms of not losing rather than winning. It's hard to explain without sounding like I'm just babbling/repeating myself, but a 3000 rated engine losing constantly against a 4000-5000 one, vs a 3500 engine not losing against a 4000-5000, possibly drawing it 80% of the time, because it has reached a level where it won't make any positional mistakes or miss even the deepest lines that the other computer can find. The difference then becomes crossing a threshold where the leap from one rating to another, makes it nearly impossible for the weaker computer to lose, therefore making it nearly impossible for the stronger one to win. And not losing = draws. But if as a result the 3500 gets 100% draws against the 4000-5000, their ratings should be the same. But they also shouldn't be because the 4000 one still beats the 3000 one much more frequently than the 3500 one beats that same 3000 one. It becomes a paradox. The 4000 one will constantly get points taken away from it by the 3500 one just by drawing, even if there are no winning lines to search for that the 3500 wouldn't still see. Their ratings would even out despite the ability difference just because of the fact that draws suck rating points out of the better player. Maybe draws shouldn't be treated the same in computer matches, I don't know.

The stronger computer can search trillions of more lines even if those extra lines can't accomplish anything better than that same draw. That's the best way to explain what I mean.

Playerafar, I don't want what I wrote down to be used negatively against anyone else. I'm not going to ask you to take back what you said, but I'm asking you to please not credit me with the inspiration for your latest insult against O. I don't mean to be rude, I just want to get it across to you and everyone else that my posts are not to be used for putting someone else down.

I know the various directions AI is currently heading, and it's not looking good for solving chess anytime before our sun becomes a red giant. What is your belief in AI's quantum leap based on? Even storing the calculations along the way would take more matter than exists in our solar system, so that's maybe the first hurdle to jump over for you.

"But the most stubborn attempts to try to insist chess is a draw arise from an incidence of todays top chess computers drawing each other constantly causing a misinterpreted claim that such computers 'aren't making any mistakes'."

Peoples flawed logic is just insane. They do not know chess engines, they do not test chess engines. And they like to make broad insane claims because of their ignorance.

Draws are common when you have high level chess engines, or humans play equally high level engines or players. But what happens when the high draw rate humans play a high level chess engine. The GM's lose 100% of the time.

Now what happens when you put a high level 100% draw rate chess engine. And play them against a higher rated chess engine. Their draw rate falls.....

Now what happens when you match Stockfish against a stronger Stockfish. Stockfish draw rates falls.

Remember when Stockfish 11 was the unbeatable monster. And today it has trouble winning a game.

Here is the current results from a test I started yesterday. And notice the cream is rising to the top. And that would not be possible if chess engine played perfect chess. And yes even Stockfish makes mistakes. And is shown when Stockfish plays a Stronger Stockfish.

Left click the image to show in a full screen Tab.

Eh, this is an interesting question if the time frame is a 100 years or so... Development of AI could be absolutely exponential in various unpredictable directions. I think AI solving chess on its own is slightly optimistic but one way or another it will be a very powerful asset in solving chess if someone decides to invest in that.

I also think some of the brances that are in focus even right now will be useful for solving chess. AI is a big promise in medicine... Deep learning and AI driven pattern recognition will be big for diagnosis. There are big motives to advance these technologies. We already have AI driven molecular analysis and pattern recognition based on things like MRI images (idk how good it is at the moment). Maybe in the future simulating entire biological systems and abstracting mathematical rule sets for diagnosis.

The development of AI tech will certainly be of aid in solving chess. As the brute force search continues the data set grows for the AI to learn from. The solving process will continue in an accelerating curve. In the process it will develop algorithms for certain structures and apply them as the search continues. You'll have combination of algorithmic rules and the data from the brute force search, and the confidence in that resulting in perfect play will only grow as the process continues.

I don't know if Dubrovnik realizes that we agree on his technical and general points there.
Of course the image will not show in the quote of his post.
Dio didn't understand earlier - I think - that an earlier post of mine didn't refer to Octo. But what some don't seem to get is that Optimissed is not 'protected'. His posts are subject to criticism. Nobody is 'protected'. Plus Op's disinformation gets interfered with too. He 'loves to hate it'. I don't care though.
its a matter of preference. Not caring. They're very different.
--------------------------

The real problem is the compulsion to dispel disinformation. If it weren't for that, then you would be able to co-exist here, without generating too much bad feeling.

I think the problems actually stem from abilities rather than disabilities. A person with very strong rhetorical ability will become used to winning a lot of arguments (or seeming to, even where they are completely wrong). Add a bit of psychopathy to the mix and a pinch of schizoid perception; also words like "projecting" which some analysts may have mentioned, as well as a compulsion to be as great a man as their father and we have may someone who simply cannot bear it when disparate views are expressed.

That's where the problem starts: in a compulsion to argue vehemently against any comment which is disagreed with. However, there's nothing wrong with arguing, with people who are like minded. But if they argue back, then the needle goes in, gently at first, to get under their skin.

In such an hypothetical situation, eventually the victim returns an insult and so the perpetrator has what is wanted. However, it can seem NECESSARY to return an insult. After all, if the perpetrator is such a big man (or lady), insulting people with such fraternal (or sororal) familiarity, no-one would ever imagine that, inside, there's a great big softie, waiting to cry "shame!"

I wonder if this is part of the theoretical structure of or unconscious mechanism behind some types of sado-masochism. There has to be both the elements, in that there is a masochistic element, in a willingness to attract attacks that may, with luck, be turned to an advantage.

I like Octo's comment but the emphasis on AI worries me a little, since AI hasn't been developed yet.

What we have is simulated AI, with an agenda to make it ever more like human participation. What is missing, of course, is a human-like intelligence which can make choices based on association patterns.

I think it should be possible, eventually, to simulate that via programming. It won't work in the same way, since programming is digital and human and animal thoughts are based on a different manner or method of associating mental images of ideas.

I do think that AI is possible. After all, if it looks like human intelligence, sounds like human intelligence, makes choices like human intelligence ..... but there's still a problem. It can't get beyond its own programming even if it's programmed to programme itself, unless a bit of randomness is thrown in and then it still wouldn't be right, because that randomness would have to be filtered or the result would be just too potentially dangerous to humanity. So we're in the realms of the old science fiction stories of the 1950s, where the machine eventually learns to bust its own filters and selective procedures and then use the random input against mankind.

Asimov was a good sci-fi writer, with the emphasis more on ideas than smooth delivery of them. He installed a "robot's first law", which the robots then proceeded to learn how to break.

I like Octo's comment but the emphasis on AI worries me a little, since AI hasn't been developed yet.

What we have is simulated AI, with an agenda to make it ever more like human participation. What is missing, of course, is a human-like intelligence which can make choices based on association patterns.

I think it should be possible, eventually, to simulate that via programming. It won't work in the same way, since programming is digital and human and animal thoughts are based on a different manner or method of associating mental images of ideas.

I do think that AI is possible. After all, if it looks like human intelligence, sounds like human intelligence, makes choices like human intelligence ..... but there's still a problem. It can't get beyond its own programming even if it's programmed to programme itself, unless a bit of randomness is thrown in and then it still wouldn't be right, because that randomness would have to be filtered or the result would be just too potentially dangerous to humanity. So we're in the realms of the old science fiction stories of the 1950s, where the machine eventually learns to bust its own filters and selective procedures and then use the random input against mankind.

Asimov was a good sci-fi writer, with the emphasis more on ideas than smooth delivery of them. He installed a "robot's first law", which the robots then proceeded to learn how to break.

That's fine, but "as the brute force search continues" is probably not going to get us past maybe a 12-man tablebase by then, maybe 13-man but that seems pretty optimistic.

The medical applications are going to be great, sure, but that's a very different problem space.

This all assumes humanity continues advancing in technology at the current rate or faster, but that is definitely not a given as things stand right now.

Well its a purely hypothetical question how far increase in pure computing power and advancement of AI can get us. I have probably more confidence/hope for it than most here and its based on the use cases elsewhere like medicine, that like chess, are almost endlessly complex and the motives to reach for the solutions are there. I'd say the learning methodologies are very applicable across fields to even chess.

Who ever said Optimissed was "protected" in the first place in order for you to now claim he isn't/shouldn't be considered "protected"? I mean other than you, in a previous post tonight.

Optimissed is the one who claims the members of his imaginary cabal are all "protected" by secret rogue mods, etc. Leave him to his madness.

All the conjecture about who is behind what and who is allied with whom clandestinely is pure malarkey and drama on both sides.

P.S. If you are going to try and disavow/walk back your efforts to lump Octopus in with the great and powerful O et al, that's fine, but then don't be alluding to it later down the line.

Who ever said Optimissed was "protected" in the first place in order for you to now claim he isn't/shouldn't be considered "protected"? I mean other than you, in a previous post tonight.

Optimissed is the one who claims the members of his imaginary cabal are all "protected" by secret rogue mods, etc. Leave him to his madness.

All the conjecture about who is behind what and who is allied with whom clandestinely is pure malarkey and drama on both sides.

P.S. If you are going to try and disavow/walk back your efforts to lump Octopus in with the great and powerful O et al, that's fine, but then don't be alluding to it later down the line.

They say guys are good at strategy, but let’s see if any of you can actually beat me.

https://www.chess.com/play/tournament/5463343