What will happen if chess got solved?

It doesn't.
But suggestion: don't let tygxc deceive you into thinking it does.
For example he likes to give examples of contemporary engine software drawing itself.
He completely ignores what would happen if that software was paired off against software of ten years in the future.
He gets it wrong about the implications of the software now being higher rated than from before.
Refuses to recognize that 'improved software' doesn't mean 'optimal play'.
Good luck trying to get him to attend to such realities.
---------------------------
But on the other hand there's no 'thought police' here.
Can anybody prohibit somebody else's belief system?
tygxc has no obligation to allow others to reason with him.

Yes, chess engines from 2035 might win against today's engines (though most games would still likely be drawn), but this is just a red herring. The real question is whether the prevalence of draws would increase or decrease when chess engines from 2035 play chess engines from 2035. And we have more than enough data to determine the answer. The more competent the play becomes, the more drawn it becomes. If the strongest engines today draw 99.8%, the strongest engines tomorrow may very well draw 99.9%. We know which way it's trending. So to therefore suggest that chess, when finally solved, will be anything other than a draw, is to literally throw out everything we have observed about high level chess since Steinitz. The stronger the chess play, the more inevitable the draw.

@228.

"The amount of draws that has evolved reflects that lack of diversity"
++ But the same engines produced decisive games in previous years ICCF WC Finals and the same engines still produce decisive games in Preliminaries, Semifinals, and Candidates.

I should just point that the sum total of the trillions of positions reached by humans and engines in all of chess history thus far are an infinitesimal fraction of the 10^44 possible positions. About 0.0000000000000000000000000001% of them. So, we have observed next to nothing since Steinitz.

@230

"chess engines from 2035 might win against today's engines" ++ Not at 5 days/move.

"whether the prevalence of draws would increase or decrease when chess engines from 2035 play chess engines from 2035" ++ Just the same: 112 draws out of 112 games at 5 days/move.

"The more competent the play becomes, the more drawn it becomes."
++ Yes, it is a property of the game, not a property of the players.
Checkers also was drawish at top level before it was weakly solved.

"suggest that chess, when finally solved, will be anything other than a draw, is to literally throw out everything we have observed about high level chess since Steinitz." ++ Yes.

"The stronger the chess play, the more inevitable the draw." ++ Yes.

"Yes, chess engines from 2035 might win against today's engines (though most games would still likely be drawn), but this is just a red herring."
No it isn't.
You've missed the point.
Completely missed it.

What will happen if chess got solved?

I do not know

What a shame...you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. As you yourself already pointed out by quoting a top ICCF player, many of the decisive games in preliminary rounds are lost purely through clerical errors. Others are no doubt using experimental engines, trying to find some advantage.

Once again, you cannot prove/distinguish between engines actually reducing errors to zero versus engines running into a current limit of their own play. And you won't be able to prove it, until chess is actually solved and perfect play can actually be discerned. Right now perfect play is only to be found in 7 man tablebases (and not even there, technically, since tablebases exclude castling rights, etc.).

Nothing.

@232

"an infinitesimal fraction of the 10^44 possible positions"
++ Of those less than 10^38 can result from reasonable play.
99.95% of those contain 3 to 16 promotions to pieces not previously captured,
i.e. need 2 to 8 boxes of chess men. Such positions cannot result from optimal play by both sides and thus are irrelevant to weakly solve chess.

To weakly solve Chess only 10^17 are necessary:
Sqrt (3*10^37*10.9456/10,000) = 1.8*10^17

3*10^37 is from this paper, page 9

10.9456 = 3.8*10^41/1.9*10^40/4 + 3.6*10^^42/1.9*10^40/4/4/2
to include positions with 3 or 4 queens, i.e. positions possible from a luxury box of 34 chess men including spare queens of both colors.
10,000 is the size of this random sample of 10,000 positions that contains no position that could result from optimal play by both sides
0.5 is the exponent for perfect alpha-beta pruning. Schaeffer only reached 0.67, but chess engines have evolved more than Chinook, and Chess is easier to prune than Checkers.

By coincidence the 112 ICCF WC Finals draws considered 10^17 positions:
90*10^6 positions/s/server * 2 servers/finalist * 17 finalists * 3600 s/h * 24h/d * 365.25 d/a * 2 a = 1.9*10^17 positions.

@232

"an infinitesimal fraction of the 10^44 possible positions"
++ Of those less than 10^38 can result from reasonable play.
% of those contain 3 to 16 promotions to pieces not previously captured,
. need 2 to 8 boxes of chess men. Such positions cannot result from optimal play by both sides and thus are irrelevant to weakly solve chess.

To weakly solve Chess only 10^17 are necessary:
Sqrt (3*10^37*,000) = *10^17

3*10^37 is from this paper, page 9

= *10^41/*10^40/4 + *10^^42/*10^40/4/4/2 to include positions with 3 or 4 queens, . positions possible from a luxury box of 34 chess men including spare queens of both colors.
10,000 is the size of this random sample of 10,000 positions that contains no position that could result from optimal play by both sides
is the exponent for perfect alpha-beta pruning. Schaeffer only reached , but chess engines have evolved more than Chinook and Chess is easier to prune than Checkers.

By coincidence the 112 ICCF WC Finals draws considered 10^17 positions:
90*10^6 positions/s/server * 2 servers/finalist * 17 finalists * 3600 s/h * 24h/d * d/a * 2 a = *10^17 positions.

looks like lots of math or smth

As you well know, all of your reductions from 10^44 down to 10^17 have been debunked many, many times by many posters and on many threads. Including by Tromp, who has actually solved a game and also reduced the previously calculated 10^46 unique chess positions down to 10^44.

Whereas you seem to have yet to produce anything beyond conjecture. Seriously...it's been many years already, you would think you would have made at least some iota of progress.

@239

"looks like lots of math"
++ Sorry for the lots of math.
Short: yes there are 10^44 legal chess positions, but they cannot result from optimal play by both sides because they contain around 9 promotions to pieces not previously captured.

There are 10^38 positions possible from a luxury box of 34 chess men with spare queens.
Of these 10^34 can result from optimal play by both sides.
Weakly solving chess only needs 1 black response to the reasonable white moves.
That leads to a square root with optimal alpha-beta pruning.
This yields 10^17 positions relevant to weakly solving chess.

By coincidence the 17 finalists in the ongoing ICCF World Championship finals with their twin servers of each 90 million positions/s considered 10^17 positions in their 112 games leading to 112 draws.

@240

"reductions from 10^44 down to 10^17 have been debunked"
++ No, rather: 'I do not understand -> not proven to my satisfaction -> not proven -> not true.'

"Including by Tromp" ++ No. Tromp did not think it worthwhile to calculate the number of legal positions without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured. That is his call.
Gourion's paper provides those.

"it's been many years already" ++ Much progress has been made.
The 112 draws out of 112 games in the ongoing ICCF WC Finals is a historic milestone.

tygxc doesn't understand another thing apparently.
Burden of proof.
He has the burden to prove his 'reductions' are valid.
But its a burden he'll never meet.
Whether trying to or not.
He continues to misunderstand about current engines playing each other too.
Should anybody be 'annoyed' by his attitude about that?
Suggestion: the correct answer is 'No with reasons. Because we expect this from him. Is one of the reasons.'
Why does he do this? He partly gave himself away one day ...
but - can't talk about it here.

So you admit your only progress is in your decision to compare apples to oranges and pretend that your make believe 10^17 number and the ICCF finals together constitute a proof. Well, I guess that is progress, but not in the direction you had hoped.

When is your paper coming out, now that chess is solved and you have conclusively proved it?

Interesting.

Hi Jokey !
I don't speak for anybody else but me ...
but I'm thinking you are aware that Dio was being sarcastic there ...

Nothing would happen, except there'd be more draws in matches between cheaters. Computers aren't eligible for the World Chess Championship or other big competitions, and the best GMs can't even beat current Stockfish consistently, so it would make little difference to the sport if engines perfected chess.

I'm using "sport" loosely as something like "competitive game". Esports would be similar. What does politics have to do with anything? Game seems like more casual word to me, something done with friends, rather than professional. But maybe there is a better word in English for what I mean that I don't know