Chess will never be solved, here's why

@14792

To come back to the 2013 ICCF WC28 game Bross-Ljubicic,
here is a game from the later 2015 ICCF WC preliminary:

Note 15 Bd3 instead of 15 Bg5.

In the ongoing ICCF WC Finals there are 8 draws with the English Attack of the Sicilian Najdorf Variation, but all with 6...e5 and none with 6...e6.
It is not only the hardware and the software that got better,
but the humans also learned from later games in their data bases.
So the 114 draws in the ongoing ICCF WC Finals not only summarize the 10^17 positions they considered, but also many more positions considered in previous games.

To make another prediction, consider the WC31 ICCF World Championship Finals:
15 decisive games out of 136. Hence plausible error distribution: 120-15-1-0-0,
i.e. there I expect only 1 drawn game with a pair of errors.

hmm

Well, we've discussed this before ...

I've asserted that the number of draws doesn't matter - players will draw against players of similar strength.

Today's field is relying heavily on the evaluations of their top engines. This is why I examined one recent draw and saw that it was nearly all #1 or #2 Stockfish moves.

Of course Stockfish can't beat Stockfish - it's limited by its own playing strength. It cannot defeat itself.

A stronger engine certainly could, though. It just hasn't yet come along.

We've already seen a past ICCF WC game where the draw was a mistake - an error that was easily found by today's technology.

If time travel were possible, anyone on these forums could travel back in time with a cheap laptop and SF 16.1 installed, enter the 2013 ICCF WC, and dominate the entire field with relative ease.

It's entirely possible that engines from the year 2034 will be capable of doing the same to today's ICCF field.

If true, this would suggest that the top-level draws of today are full of mistakes that are not yet identified ...

But again, all we can do is debate and debate, while we wait and see on this ...

bro im done with this dum things about chess never be solve

Opti is the Lebron James of this thread.

sooo true. he is dabomb james. dominates da dim bulbs here. burst !

Another thing being missed - especially by tgyxc
is that its so often that an error is made - but the level of play needed to punish it is so very much higher.
You see this in human games.
In your own games. Whoever you are. If you've played a lot.
Your level of play so often survives against an equal opponent.
But is punished by an opponent two levels above you.
-------------------
But as the level of play gets higher and higher - the errors get harder to punish or even notice at all.
GM's often draw each other.
That doesn't mean such games aren't filled with errors that the strongest engines would catch nowadays.
Or do catch - when GM games are gone over by engines.
But its usually wins that are gone over. Not draws.
---------------------
the higher the level of play - between opponents that are more and more equal on whatever given day- the harder it is for the opponent to discern inferior play ... and therefore the less likely that inferior play will be refuted.
tygxc doesn't get this at all.
So therefore the '114' draws by robotic opponents gets totally misinterpreted by him.
Put politely by me.
If he continues to 'not get it' that doesn't mean he's 'trolling' though.
He just continues to be wrong.
As he is also wrong with 'taking the square root' and 'nodes per second'.

Semantics often dominate these discussions.
For example the semantics of the word 'error' in chess.
Whether its referring to inadequate play or a series of inferior moves or a minor single mistake or a 'blunder' or failure to punish or exploit any of the above -
they're all different.
And they're all issues in play between humans or between engines.

Grasshopper!

Lebron James is not known for his chess nor his computer knowledge.
Elon Musk thinks chess will be solved in ten years - doubling Sveshnikov's 5 year figure.
But Musk's claim 'smells' a bit. 
It is Musky.

We need a seance so Sveshnikov can tell us when people will go to Mars.

And what stocks to buy.

Hi there are various interpretations of "solved". The idea of the full solution of every possible permutation of moves being assessed and followed to its conclusion is, in my opinion, impossible, so that the word "never" is appropriate in that context/.

It wasn't Elroch's point. It was tygxc's point.

Really really tired and didn't want to play in this match tonight but I'd said I'd play and it was an away match. In the event, the other six of our team all lost. I played quite well according to the analysis thing here. Made two weaker moves but was never in the negative figures. The analysis learned a lot from my moves, actually. Several times it revised its best move according to the strength of some of the moves I played. Just sayin'. Anyway, after my exchange sac he had too many loose pawns lying around and I won in another 20 moves. Time control was too fast for me. All moves in 80 minutes plus 15 seconds / move.

Very kind of you to say so. That I'm British, that is!

Oh you chickened out and deleted. Shame on you!!

stockfish probably re evaluated its moves to adjust to your moves which it considered were good but not quite as good as possible in some cases

You're right. I don't do downvoting but it isn't worth arguing you because you can never follow other people's arguments or criticisms. Lots in common with your friends there. So good point!

i deleted cuz i eas talking to you at the third person

while your most recent post was right above and then you posted that and yeah

now the order will be all messed up

In tygxc's "ICCF games are perfect" proposition, it's easy to understand why "errors" will come in pairs. All the competitors are using the best, latest engines and top-flight hardware, so that when there is a better line of play that doesn't manifest itself within the scope of the analysis that can be performed, resulting in an inferior move being chosen, the near-identical opponent will not discover the superior move either.