Perhaps. I'm open to change, and I do admit that some of my comments had little sense behind them.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
but little is hopeful yet not optimistic right ?
Hey we should have a celebration, this forum is reaching its 900th page
Feb 17, 2025
0
#14385
It would be cause for celebration if only it were also reaching some conclusions.
Quite true.
MARattigan wrote:
It would be cause for celebration if only it were also reaching some conclusions.
The conclusion, at least the only one I can make, is that this discussion is likely totally self-sufficient (not in a good way) and will likely be continuous until either it suddenly dissolves when people find something better to do or a new discovery is made which makes the verdict indisputable in one direction or the other.
DiogenesDue wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
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.
There's lots of things I am upbeat about AI tackling. Solving chess in any of our lifetimes or even the grandkid's lifetimes isn't one of them. Even if AI allowed us to prune 99.9% of all positions (which is wildly optimistic), that still leaves 10^40+ positions to traverse.
I would have to resort to the kind of "call to magic" speculations about unforeseeable advances that I already decried earlier.
You could call it a hail mary or a call for magic, sure. I dont blame you. Whats more likely, AI takes over the world or solves chess? AI has solved some complex problems already though like I said, so my money is on chess. Like AlphaFold was used for researching C0vid vaccines... because it basically "solved" protein folding as in learned how to predict it accurately. It was a similar challenge to chess in a way where the amount of possible protein structures is almost unlimited so it had to be pruned down by learning the folding patterns and ruling out 99,9% of them... Obviously easier to model than chess positions but still. Computational power increase + AI advancement will get us closer, maybe never a 100%.
why?
Here's the verdict: Chess will never be solved.
Feb 17, 2025
0
#14391
buzz960 wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
It would be cause for celebration if only it were also reaching some conclusions.
The conclusion, at least the only one I can make, is that this discussion is likely totally self-sufficient (not in a good way) and will likely be continuous until either it suddenly dissolves when people find something better to do or a new discovery is made which makes the verdict indisputable in one direction or the other.
people do lots of things - better or worse.
playerafar wrote:
I was talking about one post. Again you didn't get it.
I allude to anything I choose.
You've got more than enough objectivity to realize (and admit) that you make mistakes now and then. I do too. So do most people.
But O panics when disagreed with or criticized.
He said he wanted a rule against the word 'narcissistic'.
He has claimed 'AI makes internet searches impossible'
'Leave him to his madness' ...
(you may not realize he often doesn't believe what he says - its to provoke you and others. You probably do though.)
Its better if members know (from multiple members/sources) that O has been muted by chess.com several times during the last ten years including for three months recently.
Why is it better? Because of 'bursting the bubble' (illusion) of him being untouchable and protected.
Also its better if members are tipped off (occasionally) that he likes to report people he doesn't like.
I would think you would get this thoroughly Dio.
'bursting the bubble' isn't exactly an expression you refrain from.
But maybe you don't want to agree ... it might not 'look good'?
------------------------
You're usually right.
I didn't know about that 40 move thing associated with the Shannon number until you mentioned it.
Yes the forum subject.
The Shannon number and its enormous size is one of the tipoffs that if chess ever gets solved its less likely to be solved from the front (games) but solving from the rear (positions) where some progress has already been made.
An extremely small amount of progress (with the difficulty increasing) but it is progress.
7 pieces solved? No because castling not taken care of - however low the frequency of castling possibilities is in 7 piece situations.
With what number of pieces did they start dispensing with castling?
I don't know.
Why did they skip castling? Multiple reasons probably.
One of them could be if the tablebases have solved various simplified endgames whose nature was unknown until the tablebases.
You're right, insofar as I don't "get" why you need to take things to the level you choose to go to a lot of the time.
There's nobody claiming Optimissed is "protected", that's your own rumor, started by you. If I don't "get it", just demonstrate otherwise instead of trying to pretend there's a deeper secret that only you can divine. These types of behavior should seem pretty familiar to you, so I am not sure why you engage in them.
I'm well aware of when Optmissed is intentional in his trolling and when he's just being his genuine warm and fuzzy self (yes, that's sarcasm). Frankly, he's just not that subtle.
An editorial suggestion...when you are writing your (often three) sections of your posts, read them back and pick the one that seems like it could be interpreted by others as being paranoid or obsessive, and summarily remove it.
You are of course free to post what you want, ultimately. You do stay within the forum guidelines so it's unlikely you will get any real repercussions. Endless allusions undermine your own efforts, though.
Há 29 anos, em 17/02/1996, Kasparov vencia Deep Blue por 4x2 no match melhor de 7.
Optimissed wrote:
Would you mind not perpetuating your ridiculous conversation with your fellow cabalite? It certainly doesn't fool me and probably none of the others, either. All in all your attentions are abusive.
You fool yourself, no need for me to contribute.
It's a bit obvious, but if we were actually in a "cabal", this side conversation would not be happening in public at all.
Feb 17, 2025
0
#14395
DiogenesDue wrote:
playerafar wrote:
I was talking about one post. Again you didn't get it.
I allude to anything I choose.
You've got more than enough objectivity to realize (and admit) that you make mistakes now and then. I do too. So do most people.
But O panics when disagreed with or criticized.
He said he wanted a rule against the word 'narcissistic'.
He has claimed 'AI makes internet searches impossible'
'Leave him to his madness' ...
(you may not realize he often doesn't believe what he says - its to provoke you and others. You probably do though.)
Its better if members know (from multiple members/sources) that O has been muted by chess.com several times during the last ten years including for three months recently.
Why is it better? Because of 'bursting the bubble' (illusion) of him being untouchable and protected.
Also its better if members are tipped off (occasionally) that he likes to report people he doesn't like.
I would think you would get this thoroughly Dio.
'bursting the bubble' isn't exactly an expression you refrain from.
But maybe you don't want to agree ... it might not 'look good'?
------------------------
You're usually right.
I didn't know about that 40 move thing associated with the Shannon number until you mentioned it.
Yes the forum subject.
The Shannon number and its enormous size is one of the tipoffs that if chess ever gets solved its less likely to be solved from the front (games) but solving from the rear (positions) where some progress has already been made.
An extremely small amount of progress (with the difficulty increasing) but it is progress.
7 pieces solved? No because castling not taken care of - however low the frequency of castling possibilities is in 7 piece situations.
With what number of pieces did they start dispensing with castling?
I don't know.
Why did they skip castling? Multiple reasons probably.
One of them could be if the tablebases have solved various simplified endgames whose nature was unknown until the tablebases.
You're right, insofar as I don't "get" why you need to take things to the level you choose to go to a lot of the time.
There's nobody claiming Optimissed is "protected", that's your own rumor, started by you. If I don't "get it", just demonstrate otherwise instead of trying to pretend there's a deeper secret that only you can divine. These types of behavior should seem pretty familiar to you, so I am not sure why you engage in them.
I'm well aware of when Optmissed is intentional in his trolling and when he's just being his genuine warm and fuzzy self (yes, that's sarcasm). Frankly, he's just not that subtle.
An editorial suggestion...when you are writing your (often three) sections of your posts, read them back and pick the one that seems like it could be interpreted by others as being paranoid or obsessive, and summarily remove it.
You are of course free to post what you want, ultimately. You do stay within the forum guidelines so it's unlikely you will get any real repercussions. Endless allusions undermine your own efforts, though.
I don't think one can always tell when he believes his own nonsense or not.
Sometimes he probably doesn't know. Happens when whoever doesn't care.
-------------------
But again you didn't get it.
And its not deep.
I didn't say somebody 'claimed' he was protected.
Your idea.
But that's okay.
Here's why - even though there's a disconnect - we're still handling disagreement better than he does.
That's not hard though.
And there he goes with the 'cabal' stuff again - I say he doesn't believe it.
And 'nobody's fooled' probably.
Feb 17, 2025
0
#14396
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Speaking of "weak" vs "strong" solutions, I'd argue there's actually 3.
You are suggesting some new definitions from a point of view of poorer understanding than those who came up with the ones that will continue to be used.
1. Weak: Results known from all perfect play moves but not all the results from positions resulting from imperfect play.
Bad definition, because it is no sort of solution. If white does not have a forced win, such a "solution" contains no information on what move to play after 1. f3 e5 2. g4 (because it includes a blunder). Thus may be a petty example, but the same is true of ALL positions after the opponent errs. So to play against such a "solution", the strategy is to blunder then wait for it to time out.
Also it's a really bad idea to use the word for an existing definition (a better one, in this case) for a new definition. If you discover a new animal, saying "let's call it a 'Tiger'" is not a very smart move.
2. Strong: All results known from all possible games resulting from all perfect and imperfect possible moves and positions.
A bit imprecisely stated, but basically that is indeed a strong solution. Not a new definition, it's the existing one.
3. Ultra-Strong: All results known from all perfect and imperfect games, AND all positions NOT resulting from a specific game, but any legal position whatsoever that can be setup.
A valid definition, but really about introducing new games that are not chess. Chess is a game that starts from a particular position and has specific legal moves. For example 960 Chess is a distinct game from chess. It is similar, but it has different rules. You propose dealing with some subset of such games in a unified way. This is a valid concept, but needs clarification. For example, do you allow white to have 61 rooks?
This is an important distinction, as tablebases work backward from already "setup" checkmate/stalemate positions that weren't the result of any specific game. For all we know the best possible game from the opening is a forcing winning line for white in 35 moves, that doesn't result in any "tablebase endings".
This is simply a mistake. You are wrong, except that the game could end with any (legal) number of pieces. Obviously it doesn't have to get down to 7 or 8. There could be an earlier resolution in all lines. We don't know. But EVERY position that can be reached lies in one of the tablebases (with 2 to 32 pieces, of all legal varieties).
Solving "the game of chess" implies solving the perfect game/games from the standard starting position. Solving "chess" as an entirety includes knowing the results of any possible legal position that can be set up (can argue a 4th category for impossible positions such as a bishop in the corner behind a pawn on b2 of the same color or doubled pawns with no captures..etc.), basically having the results of every possible game, position, and moves perfect or imperfect from any position with any number of pieces with either side to move.
As should be clear now, "chess" is a game with a certain starting position and certain moves, so you are incorrect. You refer to something broader than the game of chess.
I think there are at least 5 more levels of solving chess then the 3 already given. Hear me out!
Quantum Solution – The game is simultaneously solved and unsolved until you observe a move. Every position exists in a superposition of "White wins," "Black wins," and "Draw," collapsing into one when analyzed. However, opening theory remains uncertain because every move is both best and worst at the same time.
Emotional Solution – Instead of focusing on the objective best move, this solution prioritizes moves that create the most psychological damage to your opponent. Even if the move blunders a queen, if it makes them tilt and misplay the next five moves, it was the "correct" emotional solution.
Inverse Solution – This solution determines the absolute worst possible move in every position, ensuring that you lose in the most humiliating and drawn-out fashion. The ideal game under this solution would be one where you lose all your pieces but somehow delay checkmate for 300 moves.
Grandma’s Solution – The best move is always the one that sets up a sneaky Scholar’s Mate, regardless of whether it works. This solution insists that "the opponent always blunders eventually," and if they don't, they clearly aren't playing "real chess."
The Schrödinger's Blunder Solution – Every move is either brilliant or a complete blunder, but you won’t know which until your opponent responds. If you act confident enough, all moves remain brilliant until observed by Stockfish.
This post was worth quoting, in case someone missed it. I don't dare to reply. 
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
Just FYI, and there were many post on this subject. Saying AI is not yet in chess engines.
"Stockfish is an AI-powered chess engine. It is one of the strongest open-source chess engines available and uses advanced search algorithms, neural networks, and evaluation functions to analyze positions and suggest optimal moves. While it originally relied primarily on brute-force search and heuristics, newer versions incorporate machine learning techniques similar to those used in AI engines like AlphaZero."
And just to address the other point.....
No, AI can not solve chess. You can not think your way to Solving Chess,.
You can only calculate your way to solving chess. And as already been shown, it is impossible to calculate the game tree of chess. If is far too large, and no computer possible will be able to Solve chess without being run for over 300 Trillion years.
I don't know who said todays chess engines werent AI powered but that certainly wasnt me. Didnt notice anyone else saying that either tbh.
"You can not think your way to solving chess"
This is a very generalized statement that is atleast partially false.... Mathematical rules can be abstracted from chess positions. Most of the positions are hard a conceptualize but we dont know how hard or impossible until we have proper tools. To give an example a fortress position could be mathematically modelled and you dont need brute force calculation but just apply a few concepts and prove that no side can win. The more complex position the more difficult it is to model but we dont know what is possible and what isnt in that regard. If you do that for whole chess then the brute force task will diminish..
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
I don't know who said todays chess engines werent AI powered but that certainly wasnt me. Didnt notice anyone else saying that either tbh.
"You can not think your way to solving chess"
This is a very generalized statement that is atleast partially false.... Mathematical rules can be abstracted from chess positions. Most of the positions are hard a conceptualize but we dont know how hard or impossible until we have proper tools. To give an example a fortress position could be mathematically modelled and you dont need brute force calculation but just apply a few concepts and prove that no side can win. The more complex position the more difficult it is to model but we dont know what is possible and what isnt in that regard. If you do that for whole chess then the brute force task will diminish..
This type of thinking has been granted before, but still, there's not a single step towards proving a fortress solution to chess, and even if there were, it would still require traversing far too much of the game tree to prove it, so ultimately it's the same problem wearing a different dress.
It's not like one player can unilaterally construct a drawing fortress in 25 moves or something, it would require knowing exactly how to counter every single opponent move and still build and/or maintain the potential fortress throughout the game.
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
It is absolutely true.
"Mathematical rules can be abstracted from chess positions."
Yes, that is how chess engines have always worked. And work today.
That does not solve chess.
Oh yes if its done it does solve chess. If a single position (like fortress or zugzwang) can be solved without brute force search then its entirely possible any position can. We dont know whats doable.
And by the way engines have been horrible at detecting fortresses in the past, dont know how much better they are now.
You only think I haven't made good points because you believe in your bad points. You have said I "wised up". But I haven't seen the same from you.
Looks like you're admitting you wised up.