True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

should i upgrade to premium ? you

r thoughtd

Lol, again, even using your own numbers and logic...if 2% of the evals will be wrong in your overreaching 10^37 culled positions...that's 2^35 positions you will not cover.  So how do you propose to call chess solved with 2^35 positions that might not be forced draws?  That's at least 20 orders of magnitude more chess positions than have occurred in all of human history...

All you will be able to say is that chess is very likely to be a forced draw...which is where we were already.

#1182
You still do not understand. The flawed engine evaluation is not used to prove, it is only used to guide the proof, which calculates towards the table base with its exact evaluation draw/win/loss.
If the engine evaluation were correct, then one single game Sesse versus Sesse with say 72 hours per move would be proof quod non. If the engine evaluations were correct, then all engine versus engine games and all ICCF games would be draws, only 98% are. That means that in 2% of engine versus engine games or ICCF games one side made one mistake during that game. That means the perceived top move in the critical position was losing instead of drawing.

Now case 1: assume we look at all white moves and only at the top 1 engine black move, the table base is hit and says: draw. That means that in retrospect all top 1 engine black moves were good enough to hold the draw and that other black moves were no better.

Now case 2: it is clear that all white moves are too much. It is pointless to calculate e.g. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6. Therefore I propose to look only at the top 4 white engine moves instead of all white moves. Even if the top 1 white move is a mistake, it becomes unlikely that the top 2 move, top 3 move, top 4 moves are mistakes too and that say the top 5 move is no mistake. If necessary the 'good assistants' can after the calculation review some positions and for those widen say to the top 6 or top 8 white moves to ascertain the result.

Again...you simply do not understand large numbers and seem to have no conception of them at all.  Human assistants...lol .  You are going to "review some positions"?  *No matter how much you think you will eliminate*, there will be billions upon trillions of positions that you'd have to reconcile.  Human assistants will not even be able to review the ongoing calculations at a high level, much less ever look at individual positions...

You can't "guide a proof" for traversing 20+ orders of magnitude (10^16 vs. 10^40+).  Top 4...you realize that is was only fairly recently (in terms of years) that engines even became capable of seeing Greek gift sacrifices reasonably well?  The objective move(s) for best play is/are not always going to be in the top 4 by current engine evaluations.  Once again...this is not checkers, where top 4 would cover at least half the available moves a good deal of the time.  The idea of only checking the top 1 move for black is even more ridiculous...

You seem to have befuddled yourself using the notion that there are only 500 ECO codes, ergo you can just tackle them one at time with a supercomputer and a handful of experts.  It's insane.  This is not like Deep Blue development.  This is not some incremental goal that is just another stepping stone.  The problem set is vastly larger than anything ever calculated by humankind.

#1185
Please stay civil. When people differ in opinion there is no need to sling 'you do not understand' 'no conception', 'befuddled', 'insane'... Besides who are you to belittle GM Sveshnikov?

After the first successful proof run the 'good assistants' can tweek a bit and accept some more white candidate moves for some part of the proof e.g. based on the difference in flawed evaluation between the top 4 white moves. That is what the human ICCF players do: jockey their engines. While still in the opening they analyse endgames.

10^40 is out of the way: if the 'good assistants' prepare one or more 26 men positions for each relevant ECO code, then it is only 10^37 legal and sensible. Of those only about the square root is expected to be relevant i.e. 10^19 as hinted by the checkers proof.

"is was only fairly recently (in terms of years) that engines even became capable of seeing Greek gift sacrifices reasonably well"
++ Yes, that is true, but nowadays engines see far more complicated sacrifices like e.g. Botvinnik-Capablanca, AVRO 1938 or also Deep Blue-Kasparov. It also means that even more accurate engine play can be expected shortly in terms of years.

"The objective move(s) for best play is/are not always going to be in the top 4 by current engine evaluations."
++ Prove your claim: show a 7 men position where the table base correct play is not among the top 4 current engine evaluations of the engine without table base.

"The problem set is vastly larger than anything ever calculated by humankind."
++ True, 5 years of full time 'modern computer' allocation is considerable.

Ermm, you began with "you still don't understand" yourself.  I was responding to your tenor.  I said "it's insane", not "you're insane".  Befuddled is a fuzzy word I used to avoid using something more accurate, for your sake.  I didn't even mention Sveshnikov in that post.  Please try your straw man shenanigans elsewhere.  

ICCF players do this for a handful of games, not billions.  And I hate to tell you, but ICCF players are not really accomplishing much.  They are basically shuttling information back and forth between several different engines, who are doing all the heavy lifting of trying to give different analysis perspectives.  The days of human beings "partnering" with engines are essentially over with the advent of machine learning engines.  Pretending to be driving the process at this point is delusion.  

Seeing sacrifices is not the point.  The fact that engines still cannot see the top move when the consequences of that move do not make themselves felt until 30-40 moves later is the point.  This is much more important for positional chess, not tactical.  It shows that engines' top 4 picks are far beyond human play (and so mistakes are not really discoverable by humans at this point except in the most egregious cases), but also far from perfect.

I have to laugh when you ask me to do a bunch of work to prove a claim to refute you...the burden of proof is yours.  You are the one positing something that is contrary to everything known and accepted by the experts.  I don't expose the illogic of your claims so that I can convince you...I do it so your misinformation does not spread to others.

Dedicating one "Sesse" is not remotely "considerable" in this context.  You might as well try to stop a tidal wave with a paper cup.

gimme a friend rq

Stop spamming.

...says the guy with Kung Fu Panda on a chessboard as his avatar...

Actually the weakly solved solution is what this thread is about...it's 10^40+ to solve, and no, it's nowhere near solved...in fact, when we reach an 8 man tablebase chess will be only be about ~0.000000000000000000000000001% solved.

#1190
To recapitulate:
"True or false? Chess will never be solved." ++ False!

"why?"
Expert opinion by the late GM Sveshnikov:
“Give me five years, good assistants and modern computers, and I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess.”

"Give me five years" ++ so he estimated 5 years suffice
"good assistants" ++ humans with ChessBase to prepare 26 men starting positions
"modern computers" ++ present conventional computers e.g. Sesse
"I will trace all variations from the opening" ++ all 500 ECO codes
"towards tablebases" ++ 8 men is not yet released, so he meant 7 men
"'close' chess" ++ i.e. solve chess

A calculation based on John Tromp research shows that the same method as Schaeffer used to solve checkers is feasible indeed.

With future computers and 8 men tablebase it can be even faster.

Sveshnikov was caught miscalculating and claiming weird things pretty frequenly.

His last miscalculation sadly was about the implications a CoViD-19 infection might have on him.

Wait what???? Sveshnikov said in 5 years chess will be solved? txgc If you claim that it will be even faster with 8 men table bases then I believe you are just a troll. You apparently don't understand how much harder and bigger the game state in chess is compared to checkers.

"Chess is not checkers" has never been more true than in this situation. lol

This is honestly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

#1196
I was surprised by his claim too, but after looking into facts and figures I believe he was right.
I understand very well by how much chess is harder and bigger than checkers, but the principle is the same. I gave the numbers.
With 8 men it goes faster than with 7 men.
This thread is 8 years old. 8 years from now it will be done.

I don't doubt that it is possible to solve chess. But I didn't know that Sveshnikov made such a ridiculous claim. Even with 8 men it is a ridiculous huge game state. There is no way that with the current methods we can achieve this in 8 years.

I mean what would be even your suggestion? Brute-forcing all the possible game states?

#1198
I explained a possible method above.
1) The 'good assistants' identify with ChessBase 26 men positions for each ECO code.
2) 'Modern computers' e.g. Sesse calculate from the 26 men starting position towards the table base: top 4 white moves, top 1 black move until the table base is hit to evaluate draw or not

Not all possible, legal and sensible positions need a visit. Schaeffer solved checkers with only about the square root of the number of positions.
http://library.msri.org/books/Book29/files/schaeffer.pdf 

OK.  Both of you.

https://longbets.org/

Hash out a prediction you can both agree on (suggestion: "By January 1, 2030, the result with best play of the starting position in classical chess will be / will not be proven by computer analysis", but you can work it out for yourselves).  Then bet and let time tell.

You can each put up $64, or $64,000, or $0.64, whatever stakes you're willing to risk.  But put your money where your endless keyboard rants are.

I don't think chess will be thoroughly solved because 1 move like h3 on the first move can spread into millions on blunders, mistakes, or maybe even traps and advantages! I think it will not be 100% solved because there are around 80 moves you can do after e4, and combined with what your opponent does, solving chess will be simply impossible. See, chess has lasted at least 100 years, and not all tactics have been solved. Obviously, all the even weirdest moves in the opening have been analyzed, like white moving all the pawns to the third file! Weird! But even that is analyzed. But even so, has checkmate ever shown itself on the board and been analyzed? What position will that end up being? What piece will you ever checkmate with? This is all impossible to think about, and all moves go so deeply that sometimes even the most simple positions will never be solved... 

#1201
The question will not be solved until chess is solved. There is overwhelming evidence that chess is a draw, but until chess is solved it is a conjecture only. All statements about the future are opinion and opinions tend to differ, until the real facts resolve the issue.

#1200
It is a question of money, but not of betting money. A bet is no way to determine the truth, as all poker players know. It is a question of money to allocate the 'modern computers' and the 'good assistants' for 5 years. If IBM (Deep Blue) or Google (AlphaZero) or the Lomonosov University (7 men table base) or some loner (Ken Thompson, 5 men table base) or some rich Branson / Besos / Musk / Gates puts up the money and the effort, then it will be done.

Have you ever heard about The Shannon Number?

The Shannon number, named after the American mathematician Claude Shannon, is a conservative lower bound of the game-tree complexity of chess of 10^120, based on an average of about 103 possibilities for a pair of moves consisting of a move for White followed by a move for Black, and a typical game lasting about 40 such pairs of moves. (Wikipedia).

However it is a finite number, so it will take many time to be done!
If it is a finite number, it can be reached.
It would never be reached if it were infinite.

But as it is a big number, it can be done.
Maybe in some centuries.

Photo: Claude Shannon