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

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14481

did MA say let them eat cake or let them eat candy ? (or neither !) ...seems like semantic thingy on deffing GOPI.

ditzyqueen

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14482

Optimissed wrote:

Anyway, we're talking, in part, about falsifiability, meaning that if your proposition that chess is a game of perfect information is unfalsifiable, then in turn that means that it cannot be based on evidence and it therefore has no basis as a scientifically valid proposition.

That's why "falsifiability" is a good test for what is scientifically based and what isn't. If your proposition IS falsifiable, which is a criterion which must be met to place it within the realms of scientific understanding, then why are you insisting that you have no need to refute criticism?

Unless you answer my argument about Enigma, you lose your own argument.

You're a pompous limey. No wonder Russia wants to nuke the UK

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14483

A good explanation of why chess can't be solved with "mathematical rules" is look at how many puzzles can't be solved by engines because of how bizarre, subtle, and/or counterintuitive the solution is. Just look in the "mates difficult for engines" and/or "too difficult for computers" threads for examples. How could any mathematical representation account for them given how obscure the moves are that could only be realized through logical reasoning/stumbling upon the solution randomly through a pruning search?

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14484

Optimissed wrote:

Answer my criticism regarding the Enigma. Can't?

I have not been involved in any discussion related to the off topic subject of (I guess to be) the Enigma machine. You must be confusing me with someone else.

Moreover, anyone with their head screwed on straight can see that an unconnected topic has to relevance to the helpful facts I have provided for you.

OctopusOnSteroids

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14485

EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

A good explanation of why chess can't be solved with "mathematical rules" is look at how many puzzles can't be solved by engines because of how bizarre, subtle, and/or counterintuitive the solution is. Just look in the "mates difficult for engines" and/or "too difficult for computers" threads for examples. How could any mathematical representation account for them given how obscure the moves are that could only be realized through logical reasoning/stumbling upon the solution randomly through a pruning search?

I don't see this as a serious argument because the engines we have today can't be used to determine what is doable. They can struggle with some positions that are simple for humans. It's a given that some positions are much more complex and maybe not feasible for mathematical rules.. However, the process being a hybrid of brute force and AI abstracting rules based on that data is better than only brute force and again, we don't know whats doable because we dont have the tools.

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14486

EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

A good explanation of why chess can't be solved with "mathematical rules" is look at how many puzzles can't be solved by engines because of how bizarre, subtle, and/or counterintuitive the solution is

Yes. chess has very arbitrary rules.

The key thing is that those rules do not lead to any known (or any likely) large computational short cuts. Maths is about proving very powerful general results in a relatively compact way. Very different to the main demands of solving a game like chess or checkers.

Interestingly, go is a bit more mathematical. The endgames in go can be analysed in a way which is of mathematical interest, and the game provided the inspiration for a branch of game theory. Eg here is a thesis on the subject.

MARattigan

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14487

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.

I'm no expert on game theory, so, it being from Wikipaedia, I can't say whether that is true. But all versions of chess I've come across allow for simultaneous moves, if you count a move as any action under the rules that changes the game state, e.g. simultaneous resignations. Computer versions will serialise all such actions, so, for example producing a win for one (random) player, rather than a win for both as under FIDE rules, in the example quoted.

(Actually FIDE may be moving slowly towards specifying a zero sum game (but not a sequential game). From the laws 2018:

5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediatelyends the game.

From the laws 2023:

5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw.

So now if you step into a dead position simultaneously with resigning the game is drawn, but nobody wins. If the players simultaneously resign in a position which is neither dead nor half dead both now lose instead of both winning as before.)

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14488

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.

This merely refers to the broadening of the term in some work. Chess and checkers fall into the most restrictive definition - no uncertainty and no simultaneous moves. (So even if you use a variation on the definition, chess satisfies it).

So while it is relevant to the discussion of games more broadly, it is not relevant to this discussion.

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.

[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 player moves, turning such a game into one with the more restrictive definition].

MARattigan

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14489

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.

This merely refers to the broadening of the term in some work. Chess and checkers fall into the most restrictive definition - no uncertainty and alternating moves.

So while it is relevant to the discussion of games more broadly, it is not relevant to this discussion.

Where do we find the most restrictive definition (you give no link). Does it count "moves" as changes in game state or apply only to moves of some defined "pieces"? Presumably it applies only to two player games?

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14490

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

#14491

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

#14492

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

#14493

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

#14494

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

#14495

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

#14496

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

#14497

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

#14498

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

#14499

I'm just a far more intelligent person than you

wowwwwwwwwww ...alrighty then

Elroch

Feb 19, 2025

0

#14500

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.