Computers will solve chess in 200 years.

[Peter]

Unless there is some miracle in chess where there is a forced win in 30 moves (only a 60 ply search needed and no reducing the wrong moves, etc.) then this is really not going to happen.

What about a forced remis in 30 moves?

As I said, a forced win in 60 plies _might_ be reachable. But would you accept a forced draw without proving that all other alternatives are forced losses???

Hi Bob!
Don't get your point. Forced remis is forced because there are no alternatives as well as this is so for a forced win, isn't it?
You have to exclude all alternatives as well for the win as for the draw. There may be more variants drawing (especially together with those of uncertain outcome too) to confute in some positions to proof it won or it may be the other way round in positions of certain draw as forced end

O can't imagine a "forced remis." What would that be? Even the 50 move rule is optional. And for 3-fold repetition, one side has the option of not repeating. So the concept of a forced draw seems impossible since one side _always_ has an option to look for something better.

Don't want to bother you with my rather excentric ideas but if both sides have only the alternative option to loose, draw by repetition often enough is the only reasonable result. I don't think a complete calulation up to such positions within 30 moves realistic but it would slow down the interest in playing rather pretty, I guess, if a point was reached, where the optimal man- machine- team wouldn't find no more variants worth playing. That's not a question of a certain depth of moves and seems not so impossible to me in a nearer or farer future.

[hyatt]

Unless there is some miracle in chess where there is a forced win in 30 moves (only a 60 ply search needed and no reducing the wrong moves, etc.) then this is really not going to happen.

What about a forced remis in 30 moves?

As I said, a forced win in 60 plies _might_ be reachable. But would you accept a forced draw without proving that all other alternatives are forced losses???

Hi Bob!
Don't get your point. Forced remis is forced because there are no alternatives as well as this is so for a forced win, isn't it?
You have to exclude all alternatives as well for the win as for the draw. There may be more variants drawing (especially together with those of uncertain outcome too) to confute in some positions to proof it won or it may be the other way round in positions of certain draw as forced end

O can't imagine a "forced remis." What would that be? Even the 50 move rule is optional. And for 3-fold repetition, one side has the option of not repeating. So the concept of a forced draw seems impossible since one side _always_ has an option to look for something better.

Don't want to bother you with my rather excentric ideas but if both sides have only the alternative option to loose, draw by repetition often enough is the only reasonable result. I don't think a complete calulation up to such positions within 30 moves realistic but it would slow down the interest in playing rather pretty, I guess, if a point was reached, where the optimal man- machine- team wouldn't find no more variants worth playing. That's not a question of a certain depth of moves and seems not so impossible to me in a nearer or farer future.

The problem is, you have to _prove_ that all non-drawing alternatives lose. The idea was a quick forced draw could let us solve chess. But how can you prove that the draw is the best option until you prove that all other moves lose? And that is not going to be quick...

[Peter]

Unless there is some miracle in chess where there is a forced win in 30 moves (only a 60 ply search needed and no reducing the wrong moves, etc.) then this is really not going to happen.

What about a forced remis in 30 moves?

As I said, a forced win in 60 plies _might_ be reachable. But would you accept a forced draw without proving that all other alternatives are forced losses???

Hi Bob!
Don't get your point. Forced remis is forced because there are no alternatives as well as this is so for a forced win, isn't it?
You have to exclude all alternatives as well for the win as for the draw. There may be more variants drawing (especially together with those of uncertain outcome too) to confute in some positions to proof it won or it may be the other way round in positions of certain draw as forced end

O can't imagine a "forced remis." What would that be? Even the 50 move rule is optional. And for 3-fold repetition, one side has the option of not repeating. So the concept of a forced draw seems impossible since one side _always_ has an option to look for something better.

Don't want to bother you with my rather excentric ideas but if both sides have only the alternative option to loose, draw by repetition often enough is the only reasonable result. I don't think a complete calulation up to such positions within 30 moves realistic but it would slow down the interest in playing rather pretty, I guess, if a point was reached, where the optimal man- machine- team wouldn't find no more variants worth playing. That's not a question of a certain depth of moves and seems not so impossible to me in a nearer or farer future.

The problem is, you have to _prove_ that all non-drawing alternatives lose. The idea was a quick forced draw could let us solve chess. But how can you prove that the draw is the best option until you prove that all other moves lose? And that is not going to be quick...

Probably not.

But your suggestion was a forced win in 30 calling this some possible miracle in chess. I agree but think another miracle of a forced remis as probable as the forced win, not very likely both anyhow, to admit.
Just as for the academic aspect.
Thanks for your patience and interest

[hyatt]

There is certainly an argument that the game is drawn, but one can prove a forced win in N plies, if it exists, while proving a forced draw in N plies require far more than N plies of search to test all the non-drawing lines to see if they are worse.

It is all more like the "how many angels can dance..." question, however.

[Peter]

Here is my problem, Bob!
I won't dare to argue against your mathematical knowledge in such a question but as a simple chess player to me the number of variants to be calculated doesn't depend on it's outcome but on the starting position only. In our case it's the same starting position, so it should be the same amount of work to be done, no matter what the outcome will be.
Of course I understand your idea, a forced win, if existing, could be found earlier cause it's easier to imagine in a limited number of plies. Against this to me stands the probability of drawing the almost equal starting position by perfect play of both sides.
Now if you consider a forced win in 30 possible, I don't see the impossibility of a forced remis in 30. I guess you mean I could only proof this one by going on playing the whole endless number of variants after the remis, instead of repeat moves, and that could be avoided only by trial and error to win the even very bad chances, right?
If you reach threefold repetion to avoid loss of each one of both sides, it's remis as soon as it was won, isn't it? Now, with the desperate hope to win an almost lost position, you're right, if you are satisfied with an equal of 0.00 instead of -9 for your side, you wouldn't have to let every single angle dance, would you? If -3 still is too bad for you to continue, cause you trust in your eval even more accurately, many more angels stop dancing and now my simple point:
The weakness of our arguments is just not to know the position(s) we are talking about, after 30 moves to keep your example, there could be, even if very improbable, as much positions to be found remis as there could be found such won.
To my understanding of the game, the probability of such to be found remis will be bigger, even if I cannot proof this.
Having found all variants leading to fully hopeless positions to continue playing for both sides but the remaining chance to remis by repetition could as well happen as the finding of all winning ones. (A single one winning would have to be checked for all alternatives with other outcome as well as this is so for the draws!)
The remaining doubt is our imagination of remis normally occuring in endgame only, isn't it? But that could be a problem of imagination only too, couldn't it?

And then even some more chances than the one and only threefold repetition have to be counted as not just impossible for a forced remis: why should be lack of material or stalemate occur less probable than forced win?