Chess solved?

[towforce]

So you agree your logic is flawed. OK.

That's a straw man argument. In essence, what I am saying is:

Regarding Solving Chess

It is likely that chess has emergent patterns/properties that would enable it to be solved relatively quickly.


Regarding Whether Chess Is A Win Or A Draw

While I agree that there's no absolute proof yet, the balance of evidence strongly favours chess being a draw.

So you agree. You have addressed nothing....

Sorry, what was that about trolling?

towforce --"I apologise if I came across as trolling. The point I was attempting to make was the same point that a famous scientist (maybe Stephen Hawking, I cannot remember) made about intelligent alien life: if it exists, then where is it? It should be everywhere in the galaxy by now (followed by calculations about life spreading through the galaxy)."

Yeah - you kind of missed the quip there, but it doesn't matter!

[mwyoung]

I once ran SF Matefinder on this position for over a day:

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
It reached a depth of 51 but couldn't find a mate. Existing programs are not optimized to be most efficient when there is a huge advantage but this shows that we are far from solving chess.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... I did not what to get crazy!

[towforce]

I once ran SF Matefinder on this position for over a day:

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
It reached a depth of 51 but couldn't find a mate. Existing programs are not optimized to be most efficient when there is a huge advantage but this shows that we are far from solving chess.

Importantly, though, I'm confident that most programs could find a way to forcibly win material from that position.

[mwyoung]

I once ran SF Matefinder on this position for over a day:

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
It reached a depth of 51 but couldn't find a mate. Existing programs are not optimized to be most efficient when there is a huge advantage but this shows that we are far from solving chess.

Importantly, though, I'm confident that most programs could find a way to forcibly win material from that position.

Again logic, who said that winning material wins chess games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you can not prove this position....

And you have to be correct in all positions to be correct and prove you point.

[towforce]

I once ran SF Matefinder on this position for over a day:

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
It reached a depth of 51 but couldn't find a mate. Existing programs are not optimized to be most efficient when there is a huge advantage but this shows that we are far from solving chess.

Importantly, though, I'm confident that most programs could find a way to forcibly win material from that position.

Again logic, who said that winning material wins chess games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just to be clear, this is about the question of whether chess is a win or a draw.

* the above position is clearly a win for white

* white will clearly be able to win material

This is in contrast to the start position for chess, in which no way has been found to win, and no way has been found to win material, and, IMO, no way will ever be found to do either of those things.

btw - that position cannot be reached from the starting position!

[mwyoung]

I once ran SF Matefinder on this position for over a day:

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
It reached a depth of 51 but couldn't find a mate. Existing programs are not optimized to be most efficient when there is a huge advantage but this shows that we are far from solving chess.

Importantly, though, I'm confident that most programs could find a way to forcibly win material from that position.

Again logic, who said that winning material wins chess games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* the above position is clearly a win for white


Then prove it.......

Thinking something and proving some thing is not the same thing!

[towforce]

And you have to be correct in all positions to be correct and prove you point.

Actually, no! Coming up with an EF that gives a quick and accurate evaluation of most positions in 1 ply would be a HUGE improvement on where we are now!

If a solution solved 90% of positions instantly and correctly, but there were errors in a small number of positions, an author might be tempted to leave the last 10% to the open source community.

[towforce]

Then prove it.......

The statistical evidence is that white is about 22 or so points ahead, and once a program is 4.4 points ahead, it almost never fails to win.

That's not a formal proof, but it is "beyond reasonable doubt".

[mwyoung]

And you have to be correct in all positions to be correct and prove you point.

Actually, no! Coming up with an EF that gives a quick and accurate evaluation of most positions in 1 ply would be a HUGE improvement on where we are now!

If a solution solved 90% of positions instantly and correctly, but there were errors in a small number of positions, an author might be tempted to leave the last 10% to the open source community.

Now you are left with fantasy! Prove the position above. You said it was a clear win..... I am calling you out!

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

[Dann Corbit]

Two facts that are factual:

1. As long as something like Moore's Law holds, we continue to be able to do bigger tree searches as time passes

2. No way has yet been found of winning material from the starting position

That forced win of material from the starting position is not possible at any depth is speculation on my part, not fact - but I feel confident that it's correct.

I'm not sure how that helps. You can win by checkmate when even or even far behind in material.