Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 725

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14481

You can say there is an "obvious comparison" between jelly beans and tigers, but that does not mean there is.

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14482

That is two worthless, vacuous and erroneous posts.

To contrast, let me reiterate that chess satisfies the original, most restrictive definition of a game of perfect information (and all broader - i.e. weaker - definitions that encompass more varied games). And the only relationship of Enigma to chess is that some human beings who played chess were involved in cracking codes. I suppose you could add that both cracking codes and solving chess require a lot of brute force computation (but that a very weak connection, since the computations involved are quite different).

MARattigan

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14483

Elroch wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

...

Try to get into your head the idea that being a game of perfect information is a precisely defined concept, easily shown to be satisfied by chess, checkers, tic-tac-toe, go, etc. Indeed, go and learn what the definition is.

From Wikipaedia.

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.

...

The article you linked says "Games with simultaneous moves are generally not considered games of perfect information", indicating that the earlier reference was an anomalous use of the term.

Well exactly. If you take the term "move" in game theory to mean a change in game state then chess does have simultaneous moves. (The term must be read as one of the moves of the pieces in in the FIDE laws, but those contain several definitions which are not meant to be understood as what you always thought they meant.)

[I observe that allowing moves to be non-alternate is a fairly mild variation on the definition, because you can simply define a supermove as the whole sequence of moves played by the same player before the other moves].

But simultaneous moves can't be so separated.

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14484

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

...

Try to get into your head the idea that being a game of perfect information is a precisely defined concept, easily shown to be satisfied by chess, checkers, tic-tac-toe, go, etc. Indeed, go and learn what the definition is.

From Wikipaedia.

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.

...

The article you linked says "Games with simultaneous moves are generally not considered games of perfect information", indicating that the earlier reference was an anomalous use of the term.

Well exactly. If you take the term "move" in game theory to mean a change in game state then chess does have simultaneous moves.

No, it does not.

The game is in a state when it becomes your move. Then it is in a different state when it becomes your opponent's move. And so on.

This is a tidy and complete way to formalise it.

I am at a loss as to when you think there is a simultaneous move.

(The term must be read as one of the moves of the pieces in in the FIDE laws, but those contain several definitions which are not meant to be understood as what you always thought they meant.)

[I observe that allowing moves to be non-alternate is a fairly mild variation on the definition, because you can simply define a supermove as the whole sequence of moves played by the same player before the other moves].

But simultaneous moves can't be so separated.

Exactly. That is the more radical difference.

MARattigan

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14485

Optimissed wrote:

... I'm just a far more intelligent person than you, telling you that, if you like.

@Optimissed you're as intelligent as two short planks. Give it a rest.

mpaetz

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14486

I believe that the folk that broke the Enigma code regularly took a break for tea in the afternoons, indicating that this must be an invaluable factor in solving chess.

MARattigan

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14487

Elroch wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

From Wikipaedia.

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.

...

The article you linked says "Games with simultaneous moves are generally not considered games of perfect information", indicating that the earlier reference was an anomalous use of the term.

Well exactly. If you take the term "move" in game theory to mean a change in game state then chess does have simultaneous moves.

No, it does not.

The game is in a state when it becomes your move. (I do quite often find that, unfortunately.) Then it is in a different state when it becomes your opponent's move. And so on.

This is a tidy and complete way to formalise it.

I am at a loss as to when you think there is a simultaneous move.

The FIDE laws place no restriction on when players may resign or agree draws. I would be very surprised if game theorists were in general agreement that those actions cannot affect the game state. If you take the view that a move, from a game theory point of view, is a change in game state, then because the FIDE laws place no restriction on when players may resign or agree draws, those actions can occur simultaneously and simultaneously with moves of the pieces, which always change the game state, so in that view FIDE rules chess has simultaneous moves.

(The term must be read as one of the moves of the pieces in in the FIDE laws, but those contain several definitions which are not meant to be understood as what you always thought they meant.)

[I observe that allowing moves to be non-alternate is a fairly mild variation on the definition, because you can simply define a supermove as the whole sequence of moves played by the same player before the other moves].

But simultaneous moves can't be so separated.

Exactly. That is the more radical difference.

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

...

Try to get into your head the idea that being a game of perfect information is a precisely defined concept, easily shown to be satisfied by chess, checkers, tic-tac-toe, go, etc. Indeed, go and learn what the definition is.

From Wikipaedia.

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.

...

The article you linked says "Games with simultaneous moves are generally not considered games of perfect information", indicating that the earlier reference was an anomalous use of the term.

Well exactly. If you take the term "move" in game theory to mean a change in game state then chess does have simultaneous moves.

No, it does not.

The game is in a state when it becomes your move. Then it is in a different state when it becomes your opponent's move. And so on.

This is a tidy and complete way to formalise it.

I am at a loss as to when you think there is a simultaneous move.

(The term must be read as one of the moves of the pieces in in the FIDE laws, but those contain several definitions which are not meant to be understood as what you always thought they meant.)

[I observe that allowing moves to be non-alternate is a fairly mild variation on the definition, because you can simply define a supermove as the whole sequence of moves played by the same player before the other moves].

But simultaneous moves can't be so separated.

Exactly. That is the more radical difference.

Sorry that came out twice. Courtesy of the chess.com editor. Just read the first half. I can't delete the second half because it doesn't appear if I try to edit, just as it didn't when I did the original edit.

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14488

It is always worth remembering that discourse is about concepts. Names are just labels for those concepts. The only significance of the labels is that people understand what concept they refer to in a context.

It's a fact that for convenience, people use a term for one thing in one context and for another in another, with readers being clear of the "local" meaning.

The very minor relevance to this discussion is that chess is a game of perfect information in the strongest sense, and all theorems about such games apply. It's not a big deal to anyone who already understands what the optimum value of a position is, and what an optimal strategy is.

[For example, in one context "number" might refer to a positive integer, in another to an integer, in another to a real number, in another to a complex number.]

MARattigan

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14489

Optimissed wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

From Wikipaedia.

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.

...

The article you linked says "Games with simultaneous moves are generally not considered games of perfect information", indicating that the earlier reference was an anomalous use of the term.

Well exactly. If you take the term "move" in game theory to mean a change in game state then chess does have simultaneous moves.

No, it does not.

The game is in a state when it becomes your move. (I do quite often find that, unfortunately.) Then it is in a different state when it becomes your opponent's move. And so on.

This is a tidy and complete way to formalise it.

I am at a loss as to when you think there is a simultaneous move.

The FIDE laws place no restriction on when players may resign or agree draws. I would be very surprised if game theorists were in general agreement that those actions cannot affect the game state. If you take the view that a move, from a game theory point of view, is a change in game state, then because the FIDE laws place no restriction on when players may resign or agree draws, those actions can occur simultaneously and simultaneously with moves of the pieces, which always change the game state, so in that view FIDE rules chess has simultaneous moves.

(The term must be read as one of the moves of the pieces in in the FIDE laws, but those contain several definitions which are not meant to be understood as what you always thought they meant.)

[I observe that allowing moves to be non-alternate is a fairly mild variation on the definition, because you can simply define a supermove as the whole sequence of moves played by the same player before the other moves].

But simultaneous moves can't be so separated.

Exactly. That is the more radical difference.

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

...

Try to get into your head the idea that being a game of perfect information is a precisely defined concept, easily shown to be satisfied by chess, checkers, tic-tac-toe, go, etc. Indeed, go and learn what the definition is.

From Wikipaedia.

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.

...

The article you linked says "Games with simultaneous moves are generally not considered games of perfect information", indicating that the earlier reference was an anomalous use of the term.

Well exactly. If you take the term "move" in game theory to mean a change in game state then chess does have simultaneous moves.

No, it does not.

The game is in a state when it becomes your move. Then it is in a different state when it becomes your opponent's move. And so on.

This is a tidy and complete way to formalise it.

I am at a loss as to when you think there is a simultaneous move.

(The term must be read as one of the moves of the pieces in in the FIDE laws, but those contain several definitions which are not meant to be understood as what you always thought they meant.)

[I observe that allowing moves to be non-alternate is a fairly mild variation on the definition, because you can simply define a supermove as the whole sequence of moves played by the same player before the other moves].

But simultaneous moves can't be so separated.

Exactly. That is the more radical difference.

sss

In my understanding, the correct time to offer a draw is after a move has been made by the player offering the draw. If a draw is offered on their turn before a move is made, the opponent may require a move to be made and the draw offer stands.

That was always the rule.

Only under competition rules. Under basic rules agreeing a draw is a single event with no timing constraints except both players must have 'made' a move.

There is obviously no chance of solving the competition rules game with it's full set of rules.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14490

I'm just a far more intelligent person than you

wowwwwwwwwww ...alrighty then

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14491

Optimissed wrote:

Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:

From Wikipaedia.

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.

Chess is a game of perfect information because both players always have complete knowledge of the game state at all times. There are no hidden elements, no unknown factors, and no reliance on chance. Every move is made with full awareness of the board position, making the game entirely skill-based.

One of the main reasons chess qualifies as a game of perfect information is that the board is always fully visible to both players. At any given moment, each player can see the exact placement of every piece, both their own and their opponent’s. There are no hidden cards, concealed moves, or secret strategies that the opponent cannot access. This contrasts with games like poker, where players have private hands that others cannot see, making it a game of imperfect information.

Additionally, chess does not involve any element of randomness. Many other games introduce uncertainty through dice rolls, shuffled decks, or random events, but chess is completely deterministic. Every move follows strict, predictable rules, and the outcome of a move is always known in advance. This means that players make decisions based entirely on logic, strategy, and calculation rather than on guessing or luck.

Chess is also turn-based, which further contributes to its status as a perfect information game. Players move one after another rather than simultaneously. This ensures that before making a move, each player has full knowledge of the current board position and can plan accordingly. In contrast, simultaneous-action games like rock-paper-scissors involve a level of uncertainty, as players must make decisions without knowing what their opponent will choose.

Another key characteristic of chess is that the entire history of the game is known to both players. Every move made since the beginning of the game is recorded and can be reviewed at any time. This allows players to analyze past moves, recognize patterns, and anticipate future strategies. There is no hidden past information that could impact decision-making, as everything that has happened in the game is available to both competitors.

Because of these factors, chess is purely a game of skill, strategy, and foresight. There is no deception or uncertainty involved, and success depends entirely on a player’s ability to think ahead, calculate variations, and understand positional play. Unlike games of imperfect information, where players must make decisions based on incomplete knowledge, chess ensures that both players are always working with the same full set of data. This transparency makes chess a perfect information game and one of the most intellectually demanding and strategic games ever created.

That's very much open to challenge. Anyone can edit Wiki and all that needs to be done in order to impose your version is to convince others. No need to be correct.

Yes, anyone who can access the site can edit a Wikipedia article, but that does not mean you can _keep_ a bad edit in an article. You would find that if you make bad edits they will be reverted for sure. Very quickly if it's a major article, a bit more slowly with a minor one.

To keep an edit in an article, you have to include a reference to a source for the the information that other editors agree is notable. The general high accuracy of the content shows that this process works quite well.

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14492

I stuck mainly to other subjects when I was a wikipedia editor. Math, physics, other sciences, a little sports and various random things. Just a 4-figure number of edits on a 3-figure number of articles.

Proginoskes

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14493

The game tree for chess is finite, because of the 50-move rules (and similar rules). It's just a matter of FINITE time of checking out each possibility with a min-max algorithm.

The problem is that that finite time could be a quadrillion times the age of the universe.

So can chess be solved? Yes. Can it be solved in a practical amount of time? Probably not.

playerafar

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14494

Elroch wrote:

It is always worth remembering that discourse is about concepts. Names are just labels for those concepts. The only significance of the labels is that people understand what concept they refer to in a context.

It's a fact that for convenience, people use a term for one thing in one context and for another in another, with readers being clear of the "local" meaning.

The very minor relevance to this discussion is that chess is a game of perfect information in the strongest sense, and all theorems about such games apply. It's not a big deal to anyone who already understands what the optimum value of a position is, and what an optimal strategy is.

[For example, in one context "number" might refer to a positive integer, in another to an integer, in another to a real number, in another to a complex number.]

Regarding solving all of chess - the idea of computers determining that a particular position is obviously won (for example gigantic material advantage and no resources available to the opponent except hoping for a blunder from the winning player) and then skipping analyzing all the descendant positions from that position - is just that.
Its still a strong solution of chess. Not the most thorough.
GM finishes off another GM with a forced mate in five when he had mate in four.
There's no need to call that a 'weak' solution of that game.
Its a Strong Solution.

playerafar

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14495

MARattigan wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

... I'm just a far more intelligent person than you, telling you that, if you like.

@Optimissed you're as intelligent as two short planks. Give it a rest.

Good post by @MARattigan.
Translation of Opto's post: Most people are more intelligent than him including most of the posters in this forum. And much more credible
Why does Opto constantly feel the need to tell falsehoods?
Nobody knows or cares but that Opto-behaviour is on display constantly.

playerafar

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14496

Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Chess is not a game of perfect information. People who believe that it is are dumb. They may include good chess players but that doesn't alter it. Chess is an apparently unbreakable code and, hence, we don't have perfect information on it.

Chess can be regarded as finite when certain laws are brought in to limit repetitions etc. However, the finite quality of chess is nearer what we would think of as infinite, than finite.

Yes, chess is a game of perfect information because both players can see everything on the board at all times. There are no hidden moves or secret elements like in poker. This means every decision is based on complete knowledge of the position. But even with all the information available, chess is so complex that no one (not even computers) can calculate every possible move in a real game.

Dubrovnik got that one right.
Plus he was finally caused to say the word 'tablebases' but still doesn't get it about the tablebases. Perhaps won't
Opto knows that chess is a game of perfect information but wants to assert the reverse for some reason.

playerafar

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14497

OctopusOnSteroids wrote:

VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:

Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:

VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:

Can someone summarize what are we arguing here?

Yes,

Chess will never be solved, here's why....

Basically people who believe in magic, and fantasy. Believe that you can solve chess with Rules. And a search of the whole game tree of chess in not needed. Why, because of Magic AI....

So what are your arguments to why chess won't be solved? Also people's arguments seems reasonable since a chess game is finite.

My opinion... If you come into a thread youre new with just read or follow until you catch up.. Then you can participate. No need to ask people to repeat their arguments thats not the most appropriate entrance to make

Good post by @ Octopus there.
I'll add that I think VCY means well though. He has good intentions.
And that's what usually counts for the most.

playerafar

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14498

Opto knows that chess is a game of perfect information.
When has he demonstrated credibility?
For example his claim 'AI makes internet searches impossible'
We're to think he believes his own nonsense there?
If he has 1% of the intelligence he claims - he knows that's garbage.
But he expects people to believe him?
Some of the kids do.

AurenChess

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14499

Optimissed is either just arguing for the sake of it or doesn't get what "perfect information" actually means. In chess, both players can see everything on the board at all times (as well as the prior moves), so there’s nothing hidden—unlike games like poker where you don’t know your opponent’s cards. Just because chess is insanely complex and no one can fully calculate it doesn’t mean it isn’t a perfect information game. If he actually knows this but still argues the opposite, then he’s either messing around or trying to sound deep for no reason. Same with the AI search claim—AI changes how results show up, but it obviously doesn’t make searches impossible. If he’s as smart as he says, he knows that’s not true, which makes it seem like he just likes stirring things up.

AurenChess

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14500

Optimissed wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Opto knows that chess is a game of perfect information.
When has he demonstrated credibility?
For example his claim 'AI makes internet searches impossible'
We're to think he believes his own nonsense there?
If he has 1% of the intelligence he claims - he knows that's garbage.
But he expects people to believe him?
Some of the kids do.

Hand on a minute, that's unfair. It would make my IQ 1.69. I can't be only 1.69 player ... even you have an IQ of nearly 2.

Oh no, you're right—how could we possibly doubt the genius of someone who thinks AI makes internet searches impossible? Clearly, Google must have stopped working and nobody told us. And of course, chess isn't a game of perfect information because... uh... it's really hard? Totally checks out. And now we’re calculating IQs based on percentages of self-proclaimed intelligence—solid science right there. Lol.