jryandx wrote
ok strictly speaking, that's the definition of 'strongly solved'Chess is solved when we know, for each position, the guaranteed outcome if the best moves are played from that point forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
However, chess is 'ultraweakly' solved because it's a draw!
quote from wikipedia:
Ultra-weak
this was already found by me some 20 yrs ago or so.Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any moves of the perfect play.
And despite all opposition, it was a significant result (although not surprising
coz eg. Steinitz and later some other top GM's already claimed the same thing
from more than a one century ago). significant, yes, quoting W. again:
Despite lots of articles from Chessbase and 'NIC' for decades about 'novelties'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.
suggesting that White could increase it's opening advantage, i found that
such research is rather futile because White cannot win anyway with perfect play
(more important than looking for an advantage, except in correspondence play
maybe, is looking for lines that you know better than your opponent,
especially if they are sharp). The trick is how to let your opponent make a mistake;
a WC player as Carlsen knows this, of course, but many computer chess people
have no idea, even now in this nnue age (yet experts as LK and Uri Blass also
know of course that it's a draw, as eg. a recent discussion about
ICCF correspondence chess demonstrated).