Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
MARattigan
playerafar wrote:

EE is wrong again.
1. 75-Move Rule:
The 75-move rule, which automatically results in a draw if no capture or pawn move has been made after 75 moves, was officially introduced by FIDE in 1992 as part of the 1992 Laws of Chess. Prior to this, the 50-move rule was in place, and there was no automatic termination mechanism if neither player claimed a draw, leading to situations where games could theoretically continue indefinitely.
Year Introduced: 1992

Do you have a source for that (other than ChatGPT). This doesn't correspond with my own memory.

Can you find any mention of a 75 move rule in this document for example?

https://rcc.fide.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FIDE_Laws-Of_Chess_2005.pdf

From my own memory this was first introduced in the laws in 2017, but had been applied in some tournaments or matches in 2016. It applies only to competition rules chess not basic rules chess and the 50 move rule was also dropped from basic rules chess in the same set of laws.

The rule was created to address issues where players could avoid claiming a draw, allowing games to drag on indefinitely if no player moved pawns or captured pieces. This change ensured that the game would end after 75 moves if no progress was made, thus preventing an indefinite game.
2. Fivefold Repetition Rule:
The fivefold repetition rule, which automatically terminates the game as a draw if the same position occurs five times, was introduced much later. It was officially codified into the FIDE Laws of Chess in 2014. Before this, the threefold repetition rule was in place, but it required a player to claim the draw, and there was no automatic intervention by the arbiter.

Year Introduced: 2014

Similar comments as concern the 50/75M rules.

I believe the first introduction of the 5R rule was the 2017 handbook. It applies only to competition rules chess and the 3R rule was dropped from basic rules chess in the same edition of the handbook.

Can you find any mention of a fivefold repetition rule in the document I linked to above?

The fivefold repetition rule was introduced in response to the increasing complexity of chess in the digital age, where computers and engines could repeat positions multiple times, and players in tournaments needed an objective way to avoid endless repetitions.

Summary of Introductions:
75-move rule: 1992
Fivefold repetition rule: 2014
These rules were part of the broader effort by FIDE to streamline and ....

Repeated exhortation. Stop running to ChatGPT.

MARattigan
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1001 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:

Yes, as it was posted before. If you are going to continue to post nonsense.

I am just going to have Grok pull the facts about Chess, and Game theory, and repost them as you are doing.

It is clear you know nothing about chess, computer chess, or game theory.

No more time needs to be wasted, then just reposting the FACTS.

Christ you are dense.

I know you can not fix your kind of stupidity, but just stop your nonsense!

ConclusionChess is a perfect fit for game theory because it encapsulates the core elements of strategic interaction: two rational players, a finite set of choices, perfect information, zero-sum outcomes, and a structure amenable to equilibrium analysis. Its complexity ensures it remains a rich testing ground for game-theoretic concepts, while its clarity makes it a textbook example. Whether viewed through the lens of minimax, equilibrium, or extensive-form games, chess is a living embodiment of game theory’s principles—a battle of minds where every move is a calculated step in a grand strategic dance.

And a finite length of games. Former world champion Max Euve incorrectly claimed in his Mathematics PHD dissertation that an infinitely long game of chess is theoretically possible. Finite board, finite number of pieces, repetition rules..etc, not sure what I am missing but simple logic, all chess games ended eventually no matter how long you try and extend them out.

The triple repetition rule was based on repetition of moves rather than positions (and actually not too well defined) when Euwe wrote his thesis. @EndgameEnthusiast2357 should research his subject before claiming Euwe was in error.

Yes, I know it was over 5000 moves are possible as a game length, but it was not infinite.

Here is Grok's information.

The longest possib ... ecific scenario?.

I'm more interested in the longest possible game without the 50 move rule, only drawing by repetition, how many moves into all the squares and possible positions get exhausted. An infinite chess game is impossible even if the rule was 100 fold repetition. Or 10,000 fold. If any repetition = draws, eventually the game will end, regardless of how many fold. There is no previous rule set that allows an infinite game.

And, so far as I know, no previous (published) rule set that allows a draw by some version of repetition but not by some nR rule(s). The game you're interested in arguably doesn't fall under OP's meaning of "chess" (ambiguous as it is). 

The first introduction of mandatory game termination was in the 2017 FIDE handbook. Prior to that all draws had to be optionally claimed.

All versions prior to 2017 allowed for infinite games. Basic rules chess still does because the 5R/75M rules are excluded (and, though not required for my assertion, the 3R/50M rules were dropped) from the basic rules in the same edition.

The only generally accepted versions of chess where unlimited games are disallowed is FIDE competition rules chess post 2017 and versions of chess directly based on that game.

MARattigan

But you do post.

playerafar
MARattigan wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1001 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:

Yes, as it was posted before. If you are going to continue to post nonsense.

I am just going to have Grok pull the facts about Chess, and Game theory, and repost them as you are doing.

It is clear you know nothing about chess, computer chess, or game theory.

No more time needs to be wasted, then just reposting the FACTS.

Christ you are dense.

I know you can not fix your kind of stupidity, but just stop your nonsense!

ConclusionChess is a perfect fit for game theory because it encapsulates the core elements of strategic interaction: two rational players, a finite set of choices, perfect information, zero-sum outcomes, and a structure amenable to equilibrium analysis. Its complexity ensures it remains a rich testing ground for game-theoretic concepts, while its clarity makes it a textbook example. Whether viewed through the lens of minimax, equilibrium, or extensive-form games, chess is a living embodiment of game theory’s principles—a battle of minds where every move is a calculated step in a grand strategic dance.

And a finite length of games. Former world champion Max Euve incorrectly claimed in his Mathematics PHD dissertation that an infinitely long game of chess is theoretically possible. Finite board, finite number of pieces, repetition rules..etc, not sure what I am missing but simple logic, all chess games ended eventually no matter how long you try and extend them out.

The triple repetition rule was based on repetition of moves rather than positions (and actually not too well defined) when Euwe wrote his thesis. @EndgameEnthusiast2357 should research his subject before claiming Euwe was in error.

Yes, I know it was over 5000 moves are possible as a game length, but it was not infinite.

Here is Grok's information.

The longest possib ... ecific scenario?.

I'm more interested in the longest possible game without the 50 move rule, only drawing by repetition, how many moves into all the squares and possible positions get exhausted. An infinite chess game is impossible even if the rule was 100 fold repetition. Or 10,000 fold. If any repetition = draws, eventually the game will end, regardless of how many fold. There is no previous rule set that allows an infinite game.

And, so far as I know, no previous (published) rule set that allows a draw by some version of repetition but not by some nR rule(s). The game you're interested in arguably doesn't fall under OP's meaning of "chess" (ambiguous as it is). 

The first introduction of mandatory game termination was in the 2017 FIDE handbook. Prior to that all draws had to be optionally claimed.

All versions prior to 2017 allowed for infinite games. Basic rules chess still does because the 5R/75M rules are excluded (and the 3R/50M rules were dropped) from the basic rules in the same edition.

The only generally accepted version of chess where unlimited games are disallowed is FIDE competition rules chess post 2017.

Hi Mar - regarding 2014 versus 2017 - 'codifed' versus appearing in whatever handbook could be two different things.
Anyway - Grok and chatgpt seem to agree with you that for over 98% of chess history the rules of chess allowed for infinite games.
Whereas EE blatantly tried to state there were never such rules.
Is there anybody who prefers less than EE that his posts are accurate?
There seems to be at least four people vying for that title.
EE's posts have a use though - in the way that tygxc's did.
They are opportunities for much better posters to present the actual correct information.
-------------------------------
As for chatgpt and Grok and wikipedia and articles sometimes being wrong - is there always a 'risk' of something accepted or estabished being wrong?
What if Euler and Gauss and Newton never really existed?
Were their lives faked?
There are apparently some persons for whom the better established something is - the more they try to maintain its a fake.
'No roundness of earth. No Australia existing. Denial of World War II. No Kings of England.' 
How far can they go?
Could they try to deny that the word 'that' doesn't exist?
Targeted denial versus solipsism.
They both exist but solipsists don't seem to have organizations.

OStebbins

Unfortunately, Chess.com doesn’t save chat history once the game is closed. If it was a friend, you might try messaging them directly. Otherwise, yeah… lesson learned—always copy before closing! 😅

MARattigan
playerafar wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1001 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:

Yes, as it was posted before. If you are going to continue to post nonsense.

I am just going to have Grok pull the facts about Chess, and Game theory, and repost them as you are doing.

It is clear you know nothing about chess, computer chess, or game theory.

No more time needs to be wasted, then just reposting the FACTS.

Christ you are dense.

I know you can not fix your kind of stupidity, but just stop your nonsense!

ConclusionChess is a perfect fit for game theory because it encapsulates the core elements of strategic interaction: two rational players, a finite set of choices, perfect information, zero-sum outcomes, and a structure amenable to equilibrium analysis. Its complexity ensures it remains a rich testing ground for game-theoretic concepts, while its clarity makes it a textbook example. Whether viewed through the lens of minimax, equilibrium, or extensive-form games, chess is a living embodiment of game theory’s principles—a battle of minds where every move is a calculated step in a grand strategic dance.

And a finite length of games. Former world champion Max Euve incorrectly claimed in his Mathematics PHD dissertation that an infinitely long game of chess is theoretically possible. Finite board, finite number of pieces, repetition rules..etc, not sure what I am missing but simple logic, all chess games ended eventually no matter how long you try and extend them out.

The triple repetition rule was based on repetition of moves rather than positions (and actually not too well defined) when Euwe wrote his thesis. @EndgameEnthusiast2357 should research his subject before claiming Euwe was in error.

Yes, I know it was over 5000 moves are possible as a game length, but it was not infinite.

Here is Grok's information.

The longest possib ... ecific scenario?.

I'm more interested in the longest possible game without the 50 move rule, only drawing by repetition, how many moves into all the squares and possible positions get exhausted. An infinite chess game is impossible even if the rule was 100 fold repetition. Or 10,000 fold. If any repetition = draws, eventually the game will end, regardless of how many fold. There is no previous rule set that allows an infinite game.

And, so far as I know, no previous (published) rule set that allows a draw by some version of repetition but not by some nR rule(s). The game you're interested in arguably doesn't fall under OP's meaning of "chess" (ambiguous as it is). 

The first introduction of mandatory game termination was in the 2017 FIDE handbook. Prior to that all draws had to be optionally claimed.

All versions prior to 2017 allowed for infinite games. Basic rules chess still does because the 5R/75M rules are excluded (and the 3R/50M rules were dropped) from the basic rules in the same edition.

The only generally accepted version of chess where unlimited games are disallowed is FIDE competition rules chess post 2017.

Hi Mar - regarding 2014 versus 2017 - 'codifed' versus appearing in whatever handbook could be two different things.

I'm sure they could, depending on what you mean by "codified". You could discuss that with @Optimissed. My view is that only things appearing or deducible from "appearing" are relevant to the topic. What in the 2015 rules do you (please not ChatGPT) believe codifies that a mandatory 75 move rule exists? 

Anyway - Grok and chatgpt seem to agree with you that for over 98% of chess history the rules of chess allowed for infinite games.

Not the slightest bit interested. They can call each other morons all day long as far as I'm concerned (but some humans with intellectual disabilities could justifiably feel insulted).

Whereas EE blatantly tried to state there were never such rules.

Agreed - see my previous response to @EndgameEnthusiast2357.

Is there anybody who prefers less than EE that his posts are accurate?

I would say certainly. There are a number of people that post uncritical verbatim output from ChatGPT and Gronk.

There seems to be at least four people vying for that title.
EE's posts have a use though - in the way that tygxc's did.
They are opportunities for much better posters to present the actual correct information.

playerafar
OStebbins wrote:

Unfortunately, Chess.com doesn’t save chat history once the game is closed. If it was a friend, you might try messaging them directly. Otherwise, yeah… lesson learned—always copy before closing! 😅

If the chat is reported then chess.com would be able to bring it up probably.
'Degree of deletion'. Apparently there is such a thing.
Like on hard drives or SSD drives. When an item is deleted that means its no longer in the master file tables or other tables. But its still on the drive unless overwritten or deliberately shredded (into zeroes or whatever)
In movies you see crooks smashing their phones or burning them or whatever.
But even if they dissolve the phone in acid - that doesn't mean there aren't records with the cell phone companies or in the Cloud or whatever.
Nowadays - information retention has almost achieved a kind of holiness.
Even just typing something without entering it ...

Elroch
OStebbins wrote:

Unfortunately, Chess.com doesn’t save chat history once the game is closed. If it was a friend, you might try messaging them directly. Otherwise, yeah… lesson learned—always copy before closing! 😅

I believe you, and given the scope for abuse it is an obvious design flaw that should have been anticipated and, if not anticipated, fixed.

MARattigan
playerafar wrote:

...
What if Euler and Gauss and Newton never really existed?
Were their lives faked?
...

How would that help you find any mention of a 75 move rule in the 2015 FIDE handbook?

playerafar
MARattigan wrote:
playerafar wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1001 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:

Yes, as it was posted before. If you are going to continue to post nonsense.

I am just going to have Grok pull the facts about Chess, and Game theory, and repost them as you are doing.

It is clear you know nothing about chess, computer chess, or game theory.

No more time needs to be wasted, then just reposting the FACTS.

Christ you are dense.

I know you can not fix your kind of stupidity, but just stop your nonsense!

ConclusionChess is a perfect fit for game theory because it encapsulates the core elements of strategic interaction: two rational players, a finite set of choices, perfect information, zero-sum outcomes, and a structure amenable to equilibrium analysis. Its complexity ensures it remains a rich testing ground for game-theoretic concepts, while its clarity makes it a textbook example. Whether viewed through the lens of minimax, equilibrium, or extensive-form games, chess is a living embodiment of game theory’s principles—a battle of minds where every move is a calculated step in a grand strategic dance.

And a finite length of games. Former world champion Max Euve incorrectly claimed in his Mathematics PHD dissertation that an infinitely long game of chess is theoretically possible. Finite board, finite number of pieces, repetition rules..etc, not sure what I am missing but simple logic, all chess games ended eventually no matter how long you try and extend them out.

The triple repetition rule was based on repetition of moves rather than positions (and actually not too well defined) when Euwe wrote his thesis. @EndgameEnthusiast2357 should research his subject before claiming Euwe was in error.

Yes, I know it was over 5000 moves are possible as a game length, but it was not infinite.

Here is Grok's information.

The longest possib ... ecific scenario?.

I'm more interested in the longest possible game without the 50 move rule, only drawing by repetition, how many moves into all the squares and possible positions get exhausted. An infinite chess game is impossible even if the rule was 100 fold repetition. Or 10,000 fold. If any repetition = draws, eventually the game will end, regardless of how many fold. There is no previous rule set that allows an infinite game.

And, so far as I know, no previous (published) rule set that allows a draw by some version of repetition but not by some nR rule(s). The game you're interested in arguably doesn't fall under OP's meaning of "chess" (ambiguous as it is). 

The first introduction of mandatory game termination was in the 2017 FIDE handbook. Prior to that all draws had to be optionally claimed.

All versions prior to 2017 allowed for infinite games. Basic rules chess still does because the 5R/75M rules are excluded (and the 3R/50M rules were dropped) from the basic rules in the same edition.

The only generally accepted version of chess where unlimited games are disallowed is FIDE competition rules chess post 2017.

Hi Mar - regarding 2014 versus 2017 - 'codifed' versus appearing in whatever handbook could be two different things.

I'm sure they could, depending on what you mean by "codified". You could discuss that with @Optimissed. My view is that only things appearing or deducible from "appearing" are relevant to the topic. What in the 2015 rules do you (please not ChatGPT) believe codifies that a mandatory 75 move rule exists? 

Anyway - Grok and chatgpt seem to agree with you that for over 98% of chess history the rules of chess allowed for infinite games.

Not the slightest bit interested. They can call each other morons all day long as far as I'm concerned (but some humans with intellectual disabilities could justifiably feel insulted).

Whereas EE blatantly tried to state there were never such rules.

Agreed - see my previous response to @EndgameEnthusiast2357.

Is there anybody who prefers less than EE that his posts are accurate?

I would say certainly. There are a number of people that post uncritical verbatim output from ChatGPT and Gronk.

There seems to be at least four people vying for that title.
EE's posts have a use though - in the way that tygxc's did.
They are opportunities for much better posters to present the actual correct information.

MAR you seem to have quite a distaste for the AIs.
Its quite remarkable. 'spontaneous denunciation' ...
But when I say some couldn't prefer less that their posts are accurate I'm referring to their own assertions - not quotes from other sources.
A quote is different from an assertion and I'm sure you know the difference.
I like to think that your 'turns on a dime' are faked for the purpose of Kidding Around.
Honest people do kid around. happy
-------------------------

MARattigan

I'm actually very impressed by AIs. I have a distaste, not for AIs, rather misuse of the same by humans (notably assertions that AI routines in Chess programs guarantee theoretically accurate predictions of game results and that the output from LLMs are authoritative sources for any topic).

Certainly a quote is different from an assertion, but assertions which are uncritically based on AI output are worse than quotes of the same because the true source is not apparent.

playerafar
MARattigan wrote:

I'm actually very impressed by AI results. I have a distaste, not for AI's, rather misuse of the same by humans (notably assertions that AI routines in Chess programs guarantee theoretically accurate predictions of game results and that the output from LLMs are authoritative sources for any topic).

Certainly a quote is different from an assertion, but assertions which are uncritically based on AI output are worse than quotes of the same because the true source is not apparent.

There are some who would regard AIs as oracles. The same has happened with other sources.
When EE tried to assert (falsely) that there have been no versions of chess rules allowing infinite games - I elected to ask Grok and chatgpt about chess rules.
It could be similiar asking wikipedia or google search or getting out an Encyclpaedia or other book.
The AIs mentioned that 5 fold repetitions and 75 move rules are recent.
Should we allow for a possibility that they're wrong and that's 'faked' or incorrect in the details?
Even Einstein was proven somewhat mistaken about some things wasn't he?
Notice that I mentioned Einstein. I didn't compare.
-------------------------
But regarding AI - I asked it just now to compare solipsism with denialism and schizophrenia and other delusionary disorders.
But if I posted a summary of that discussion here - some might get too 'excited'.
happy
-------------------------

MARattigan

@playerafar

Some might also find it very tedious.

MARattigan
Optimissed wrote:
...

Only the person who is concerned that some others might "worry pathetically about who supports whom" is going to feel left out ...

There are a few of those around. You don't have to look very far.

playerafar

"I'm actually very impressed by AI results." from @MARattigan just now.
So am I.
Now when something from an AI is posted its reasonable to expect or prefer that whoever includes that they got whatever from an AI - and to indicate what part is from the AI by using quote marks.
But this doesn't mean that whoever has to keep adding lengthy disclaimers like 'the AI could be wrong! What about its sources? What if the information was faked? What if the moon landings were faked?'
We can expect that many won't even mention they got the info from AI - or not use quotes.
And would it be innocent to use AI assistance as opposed to information?
I think there's going to be more and more of that.
For those willing to do so - there's use of something called 'logical evidence'.
You can present your logic and ask the AI to present its logic.
You can directly check on what the AI is saying to see if its contradicting itself or using an invalid or unestablished premise.
However - most people aren't interested in logical evidence.
Apparently its about having the time for it.

playerafar

Translation: O referring to himself again. Happens constantly. Its predictable. Very.

playerafar

Another strawman because who has stated a belief that AI is never wrong?
In other words more invalid premise from 'O' again.
Several hours from now - he'll have probably made several more.
Apparently the moderators have talked to him though. Gotten through.
He's having to tone it down. Good thing.

playerafar
Optimissed wrote:

That means they've talked to you because it's on your mind. Not to me. It isn't necessary.

Translation: confirmation they've talked to O.
Otherwise he wouldn't have toned it down.
But I'd rather reply to much better posters than O.

MARattigan
playerafar wrote:

"I'm actually very impressed by AI results." from @MARattigan just now.
So am I. Overly might one suggest? Now when something from an AI is posted its reasonable to expect or prefer that whoever includes that they got whatever from an AI - and to indicate what part is from the AI by using quote marks.
But this doesn't mean that whoever has to keep adding lengthy disclaimers like 'the AI could be wrong! What about its sources? What if the information was faked? What if the moon landings were faked?'

Agreed. It does, however, mean they should make some effort to check the results for themselves, by their own reasoning or using what they consider to be reliable sources, and indicate the sources in the latter case. The relative reliability of sources is a very important consideration; AIs apparently refrain from reporting even what sources they've used.

We can expect that many won't even mention they got the info from AI - or not use quotes.
And would it be innocent to use AI assistance as opposed to information?
I think there's going to be more and more of that.

I'm afraid you could be right. This thread is showing signs of descending into AIs arguing rubbish with each other plus posts correcting the rubbish, while it gets more and more difficult to find any sensible discussion squeezed in between. 

For those willing to do so - there's use of something called 'logical evidence'.
You can present your logic and ask the AI to present its logic.

If you believe you have your logic right, presenting it to an AI is probably not a good choice currently.

You can directly check on what the AI is saying to see if its contradicting itself or using an invalid or unestablished premise.
However - most people aren't interested in logical evidence.
Apparently its about having the time for it.

Just post your own relevant views as you have time. There is no obligatory minimum frequency of posts you must comply with in the forum.

playerafar

@MARattigan
"Just post your own relevant views as you have time. There is no obligatory minimum frequency of posts you must comply with in the forum."
Lol. No kidding?
I was referring to direct conversations with AI.
Getting logical evidence from AI while presenting your own logical evidence to it.
AI does sometimes disagree with whoever posting to it - but does so very diplomatically.
You can qualify why you disagree - present it.
The AI will gush approval - but you can ignore that.
Point: it is responsive to logical evidence.
For example if it says a certain mathematician used another mathematician's work - you can sometimes point out that the second mathematician wasn't born till after the death of the first!
Logic in action!

This quote has been deleted.