Is Chess Something We Can Solve?

Is chess solvable without programming things to solve it for us? I am talking about making chess a totally obsolete, not mind intriguing game because the human mind has made it a routine to do certain moves in certain scenarios to beat your opponent every time. There are many games where you can solve them by looking at patterns and forcing inevitable moves to win every single time. Take the game Chopsticks, for example. If you do your moves right, the person who goes first always looses. I consider chess something that is complex in the way that there are multiple different ways to try to get as good as you can, but there is no way to predict your opponent’s mind. That’s what is so beautiful about the game. Making moves that will force a certian thinking for your opponents.
On the other hand, there are AI engines that will beat the most renowned chess masters, but that is different than humans beating it. The AI engine goes through all the scenarios of each move, the probability of the outcome of how the opponent will react to which feints and plays, all in a millisecond. The human mind may never work that way for a long time, so I wonder if there is a way for us to find a better, more intuitive way of playing that will always lead to an inevitable win.
I know there is a forum post on General Chess.com Discussion about chess never being able to be solved, but I didn’t really get it. So I put this post in my terms in hopes of a different approach. If yes to all of this, there is also the controversy of: If both players both mastered it, who would win? Anyways, thanks if you read all this

@1

"a better, more intuitive way of playing that will always lead to an inevitable win."
++ No, only a better way that will always lead to an inevitable draw.

"If both players both mastered it, who would win?" ++ It would be a draw. Look here:
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104 White has the initiative, an advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn, not enough to win and each further move dilutes the advantage.

Based on hundreds of thousands of games many (most?) serious chess thinkers believe the game is a draw with best play. However, given the vast amount of positions possible, to 100% prove chess is a draw (or win for either side) is a task beyond our current capacity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess

But isn’t there ways to force moves?

My idea.

Chess as a tri-athlon.

1 game of chess.

1 game of Xiangqi.

1 game of backgammon for a tie breaker.

That gives everyone a little of everything.

I call it: The Gamesters of Triskelion, from Star Trek.

@tygxc

The first time I teach a lady chess, she said, "It's just a big game of tic-tac-toe."

Xiangqi, the other descendant of Chaturanga that is closer to Chaturanga, with everything people don't like about chess.

no castling

no pawn promotion

no 2 step pawn

no Queen, just Vizier, 1 square diagonally.

Elephant, 2 squares diagonally, pre-Bishop.

stalemate is a win.

radial symmetry, instead of mirror symmetry, chiral symmetry.

No.

Attempts have been made to prove a win for white. Weaver Adams tried it with 1.e4, and Hans Berliner with 1.d4. Neither was successful. The trouble is that you need to show a win against any reply. For 1.e4, you have to refute 1...e5, 1...c5, 1...c6, and 1...e6, as well as a number of less common replies. For 1.d4 there are also several replies. No serious advantage has been found against any of the most common replies. Even if black is having trouble in, say the French Winawer or King's Indian, there are alternative lines to play.

Yes. It's called "playing chess for centuries."

theres a guy on chess.com called @tygxc who is known to drastically misrepresent research on chess solving to try to justify a delusional fantasy he has. his claims have been debunked extensively on other forums, and it is not worth engaging with him. I'm just here to warn you guys ahead of time so tygxc doesnt get taken seriously.

Tygxc does not understand the concept of a mathematical proof, so do not enter conversation as if basic logic holds in his mind.

For example, when we pointed out that he cant just disregard positions based on conventional wisdom instead of rigorously proving it, he pulled out a merriam webster definition of 'proof' as if it countered our requirements for mathematical rigor.

tygxc is also famous for claiming that a lack of counterexample provided constituted as evidence/proof. this is the appeal to ignorance fallacy, and when I linked him to explain how it was a fallacy, he proceeded to ignore it and continues repeating the fallacy to this day.

here we see some example's of tygxc's lack of understanding of mathematical proof.

A numerical evaluation by an imperfect engine is entirely meaningless. tygxc pretends that it is rigorous. when asked for logical justification tygxc responds with "oh it's common chess knowledge" and then quotes a bunch of guys out of context who say chess is a draw.

i never claim to be a genius. But yes, I am butt hurt about tygxc's intellectual dishonesty. His outright refusal to engage with any sort of logical integrity has been the most offensive insult to me, and is similarly offensive to any who are interested in the pursuit of knowledge.

when people point out his fallacies, you know what tygxc does? he downvotes them and moves onto the next person to try to swindle.

Interesting question. People should spend a lot of time figuring out what the answer might be. My vote is yes chess is solvable. A forced win for white starting with the first move. Which assumes the very best moves by both sides.

That's a lot of words to say you hold a grudge against someone simply because you aren't skilled/experienced enough to understand the words coming out of their mouth.

You havent seen the full extent of tygxc's illogic so I can understand why you would think that I'm having some sort of reaction. I'm actually very reserved and quiet when someone is making a good or complex argument against me (even when I don't particularly like the contents).

But, would you rather waste your time with him just so you can reach the same position as I have, or would you rather just ignore both tygxc and myself and get better info elsewhere? I dont care if you dont listen to me. it is just important that people aren't mislead by tygxc.

btw in the last 24 hours, tygxc has:

1. Misrepresented the contents of a data set, and when called out on the misrepresentation, stopped linking the data set and instead linked the overarching site itself, claiming (falsely) that his purported data set was elsewhere. He was pressed to give the specific data set but refused to do so.

2. Misrepresented what a statistic referred to (I was literally just quoting the paper that he claimed supported him and he called my quote wrong)

3. Falsely claimed that a set of 100 computer games was the equivalent work to proving that chess was a draw. (based on several basic arithmetic errors, tygxc confusing a node with a full positional analysis in order to make the correct move, as well as claiming without evidence that the computer games did not contain errors).

4. Misrepresented the contents of a researcher's work (he claimed that the researcher made a specific conjecture, when in reality no such conjecture could be found in the researcher's work, and tygxc was unable to provide any instance of even the number he claimed was conjectured.

First, I've seen valued members of the community leave permanently due to personal attacks like these over sustained periods of time. @pfren comes to mind, this post gives a bit of insight into the issue: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/why-arent-titled-players-more-active-in-the-forums?page=1

Second, I say this not to offend but to inform, you come across as a troll. You're a meme profile 1400 bullet player, so your credibility is dubious to begin with, and it didn't help that when you responded directly to him you were just incorrect on all accounts. Barring the baseless accusations (lack of understanding of mathematical proof, and the direct quote "tgxyc pretends that it is rigorous"):

• He never mentioned an engine evaluation. Any experienced chess player can tell you that a pawn is roughly equivalent to three tempi, and so White is roughly +0.33 in terms of material at the start of the game. There is a positive correlation between the value of tempi and the number of active pieces on the board, and so in general every move does dilute the value of this first-move advantage.
• Everything I can immediately think of that he says IS in fact general chess knowledge, such as chess is a draw, "enter dubious opening here" is dubious, 1. e4 is best for White and 1. e4 e5 and 1. d4 d5 are best for Black
• His quotes are not out of context considering they are from masters in their field and pertinent to the topic.

Third, you don't actually have a source to back up... any of your claims. His sources may be appeals to ethos at best, but they aren't intended to be sources. They're intended to be visual aides. When he says chess is a draw, that's common knowledge (which you DO NOT have to cite in essentially any form of essay or debate) and so his link to the ongoing 2022 ICCF Worlds is not a source or a citation, it's a visual aide to show that the strongest human chess on the planet currently is leading to a VAST majority of draws. Meanwhile, you have made various brazen claims about his lack of credibility with nothing to back any of them up except your word. Also, calling something a fallacy does not prove it false whether or not it is a fallacy.

In conclusion, you come across as a troll who personally attacked a valued member of the community baselessly using argument from fallacy because you don't understand that common knowledge doesn't need sources.

Hence my statement, that's a lot of words to say you hold a grudge against someone simply because you aren't skilled/experienced enough to understand the words coming out of their mouth.

If you can prove my statement false by backing your points up with actual proof and attacking tgxyc's POINTS instead of him personally, I'll address them. Until then, though, I will continue to defend his credibility as it stands.

cual a sido con la mayor precision con la que as jugado

@Ethan I'm willing to bet $100 that you will end up in the same position as I in time, if you choose to go down the tygxc delusion rabbit hole.

Also, here's some life advice: just because a person is good at chess, that doesn't make them smart.

You can either a) not have your time wasted and understand/trust that what I am saying is the truth. or b) waste both of our time to reach the same position, and I end up with $100 depending on whether you made the bet. I'm fine going down either path.

Which are you going to choose? In case you choose the latter, let's begin.

"He never mentioned an engine evaluation. Any experienced chess player can tell you that a pawn is roughly equivalent to three tempi, and so White is roughly +0.33 in terms of material at the start of the game."

yes, that evaluation is conventional knowledge. however, tygxc claims that as a mathematically verified value from axioms (and elsewhere gives context to it as an engine result). Neither are quotes or other conventional wisdom mathematically proven from the axioms of the game, but that's what a solution requires. you might be like "well tygxc isnt calling the general knowledge a proof". but tygxc DOES call it a proof.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=637#comment-103648529

here's tygxc claiming that the amount of work needed to solve chess was done by doing 100 games, in addition to him falsely representing some definitions. for example, a method for black guaranteeing a draw isn't enough to be considered a weak solution of the game, because it does not prove that black cannot win from the start position.

you might be like, 'oh thats just him being taken out of context, surely he means to include that as well?'

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=443#comment-80199931

here's tygxc making that claim again word for word, alongside a long-disproven proposal that chess could be weakly solved in 5 years.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=439#comment-80046541

here's some random tygxc lies, where he claims chess errors follow a poisson distribution. does tygxc know what a 'poisson distribution' is? Nope, but since the number tends towards zero he uses it to claim that chess players are almost perfect.

however, chess errors only follow one of the four axioms needed in a poisson distribution.

- k is the number of times an event occurs in an interval and k can take values 0, 1, 2, ... . (this one is true)
- The occurrence of one event does not affect the probability that a second event will occur. That is, events occur independently. (as you know, a chess game that has errors on it is likely to have other errors, as more difficult lines are missed by both players)

- The average rate at which events occur is independent of any occurrences. For simplicity, this is usually assumed to be constant, but may in practice vary with time. (as you know a chess game has less errors in the opening, so this is false)
- Two events cannot occur at exactly the same instant; instead, at each very small sub-interval, either exactly one event occurs, or no event occurs. (you can go to the thread yourself and personally verify that tygxc counts a blunder from a win-> loss as a double error, thus violating this axiom as well) https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=440#comment-80148381

tygxc simply says that none of this happens under a "sufficienly strong" tournament, but never elaborates. this is because tygxc is simply assuming that it is true. there is no reason why a 3000 rated engine might not (rarely) make such a double blunder in a precarious position.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=444#comment-80207165 here's more of tygxc's main delusion.

"A random sample of 10,000 positions as counted by Gourion shows none can result from optimal play by both sides either. " - only 500 of the 10,000 positions in the sample are even legal, nor was the "optimal play" ever studied of those legal positions. you'll notice that tygxc then pulls 10^4 from nowhere.

the 10^38 is legal positions without promotion, but then tygxc uses a set of positions that could include promotion to justify a reduction to those without promotion positions.

Then, you'll notice that the positions in the square root are only left so that black has only one move per position. this requires that black's response be optimal without room for considering other moves. but tygxc only assigns 1 node to each position. tygxc is expecting that the computation magically figures out which move is correct, on the first move looked at, on the first try, every time. For context, engines that use millions of nodes per move are very imperfect.

"Third, you don't actually have a source to back up... any of your claims."

Here's some more, at the most recent time I dont even need to be the one to correct it. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?newCommentCount=13&page=640#comment-103680959

you will find that there is a group of five of us taking turns debunking tygxc's claims.

you can find each of tygxc's misrepresentations that I mentioned there and personally verify them.

Do you want more? I can keep going. tygxc has provided YEARS of fallacies and falsehoods.

I may have to update the links as something just moved ALL of the comments, as when chess.com mutes someone it temporarily deletes all the post from the forum, resetting the post counter (edit ill just leave it that way in case the forums get fixed so i dont have to change again)