Thank you, now it's easy for both of us to see not all of it needs to be analyzed, but still show one side can have a forced win.
You can prove a game is a draw given perfect play by both sides while looking at a tiny fraction of the possible games. This is what was done for checkers.
The way it works is this. First you somehow generate a strategy for the first player that achieves a draw against any defense (a strategy is simply an unambiguous way of picking a move in any position). Then you do the same for the second player.
The first result shows the value of the game is at least a draw for the first player. The second result shows the value of the game is at most a draw for the first player ( = at least a draw for the second player).
From the two inequalities, you know the value of the game is precisely a draw.
Very roughly speaking this approach reduces game complexity by a power of a half.
The yearly event at Lieden is recognized as the World Championship.
No, no it's not. It doesn't matter what some layman in the press says. TCEC is where the actual engine developers consider themselves to have actually proven something.
The TCEC is Software competition. The "standard program" that is available to the public which is required to run on limited processing power and meet other parameters set by the organizers. Basically it is a competition of commercial products, available software programs running on high end PC's. (The organizers have set quite stringent limitations on the hardware so that every program is running basically on the same thing). There are other competitions that test a programs "strength". Unlimited processing by example.
I think everyone knows Stockfish is open sourced. The entire code is available for everyone 100% free and can be modified.
The event in Leiden (the last 3) has taken place for a dozen years as the World Computer Chess Championship. It is not "what some reporter says". It's limitation is it's required for the programmers to be present as they actually make the moves over real chess boards. For this reason, not all participate as other competitions have started up where the competitors need not b present at a given location, but can just let their programs run from the home or office.
A two-player game can be "solved" on several levels:[1][2]
Despite their name, many game theorists believe that "ultra-weak" proofs are the deepest, most interesting and valuable. "Ultra-weak" proofs require a scholar to reason about the abstract properties of the game, and show how these properties lead to certain outcomes if perfect play is realized.[citation needed]
By contrast, "strong" proofs often proceed by brute force—using a computer to exhaustively search a game tree to figure out what would happen if perfect play were realized. The resulting proof gives an optimal strategy for every possible position on the board. However, these proofs are not as helpful in understanding deeper reasons why some games are solvable as a draw, and other, seemingly very similar games are solvable as a win.
Given the rules of any two-person game with a finite number of positions, one can always trivially construct a minimax algorithm that would exhaustively traverse the game tree. However, since for many non-trivial games such an algorithm would require an infeasible amount of time to generate a move in a given position, a game is not considered to be solved weakly or strongly unless the algorithm can be run by existing hardware in a reasonable time. Many algorithms rely on a huge pre-generated database, and are effectively nothing more.
Draughts, English (Checkers)This 8×8 variant of draughts was weakly solved on April 29, 2007 by the team of Jonathan Schaeffer, known for Chinook, the "World Man-Machine Checkers Champion". From the standard starting position, both players can guarantee a draw with perfect play.[10] Checkers is the largest game that has been solved to date, with a search space of 5×1020.[11] The number of calculations involved was 1014, which were done over a period of 18 years. The process involved from 200 desktop computers at its peak down to around 50.[12]
Because of the forced capture rule, Losing Chess games often involve long sequences of forced captures by one player. This means that a minor mistake can doom a game. Such mistakes can be made from the very first move—losing openings for White include 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.d3, 1.Nf3, 1.Nc3, 1.f4, 1.h4, 1.b4, 1.h3, 1.a3, 1.c3 and 1.f3. Some of these openings took months of computer time to solve, but wins against 1.e4, 1.d4, and 1.d3 consist of simple series of forced captures and can be played from memory by most experienced players.[a]
This main variant of Losing Chess was weakly solved in October 2016; White is able to force a win beginning with 1.e3
computers will never solve chess,we can only solve computers.Lol don't even know what i said
You can prove a game is a draw given perfect play by both sides while looking at a tiny fraction of the possible games. This is what was done for checkers.
The way it works is this. First you somehow generate a strategy for the first player that achieves a draw against any defense (a strategy is simply an unambiguous way of picking a move in any position). Then you do the same for the second player.
The first result shows the value of the game is at least a draw for the first player. The second result shows the value of the game is at most a draw for the first player ( = at least a draw for the second player).
From the two inequalities, you know the value of the game is precisely a draw.
Very roughly speaking this approach reduces game complexity by a power of a half.
Your use of the word strategy is really just another way of saying "method of selecting moves", correct? Have you considered the method I proposed of looking at only the squares, and the effect of pieces on the squares?
To be precise, a complete strategy is an algorithm that will always select a move whatever the opponent plays. It does not have to be able to select a move in positions that are avoided by the strategy. (As a very simple example, a strategy that plays 1. e4 in the opening position has no need to be able to deal with the 20 positions black can reach on move 1 after 1. d4).
To solve a game this has to be done absolutely thoroughly, which involves enumerating every position that can be reached and proving that the opponent cannot refute them. This is what was done for checkers (and several other games).
Enumerating all the positions is easy.
Nonsense. It took 20 years and 200 full time computers to solve checkers. The Weak proof solved only a few opening moves with best play. The method if used for chess is IMPOSSIBLE. You make the most outlandish false statements.
Notice that nobody on this forum has solved the one chess position which i solved in anout 6 minutes. You can use your chess emgines to try and solve.
The chess position which a 70 plus year old gentleman solved quickly but the best chess engines cannot seem to solve--gives some indications of how hard it is to solve chess using chess engines.
Let's try it this way .... what is the difference between a unique numerical representation of a position and an "enumerated position"?
i do not know--tell us...
I believe no,i feel we as humans are missing a whole other side of chess.A side we have not yet explored.
anyways,chess will never be solved,it is a game full of endless possibilities.Want a game anyone?post on my wall.
Thank you, now it's easy for both of us to see not all of it needs to be analyzed, but still show one side can have a forced win.
The point is, it's not "an important tool used for analyzing chess" nor is it a surprise or an omission to see one or not see one in "academic papers" on chess. I've taken courses in Game Design and Gamification, from UC Santa Cruz and Wharton, respectively, but you haven't seen me (until now, to make a different point) trying to worm my way to more credibility by talking about them. I just lay out the facts. You read some PDFs on the Interwebz, and then try to imply you have some authority by osmosis 
...
Much like Einstein's theories, people have been poking at solving chess for (almost 3 quarters of a century in chess' case)...and nobody has found a shorter way to solve it. So, until someone definitively does something, not says they might be able to do something, someday...you're just barking for barking's sake.
...and nobody has found a shorter way to solve it...
...yet. That would make a solution all the more profound.
"Consider this thought experiment..."
It still kills me that a clown on this topic actually said the above.
Illustrates the mentality on this topic perfectly: yes, yes, but, but, so I know better.
...and nobody has found a shorter way to solve it...
...yet. That would make a solution all the more profound.
I guarantee you that nothing whatsoever helpful in the solving of chess is ever going to come from this particular thread...
I go as far as proposing only two branches need analyzing. 1. e4 and 1. d
Yup, maybe even just 1.e4.