In article ,
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
wrote:
Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our
lifetimes....

You don't really need to. All you need to do is solve up to about
a one-pawn advantage. A 2500 player could beat almost anyone in
the world with those odds.

Nonsense. In many endgames, a single pawn advantage is not enough
to win. In many middlegames, a significant material deficit is not
enough to lose (sacrificial mating attacks).

I mean a good pawn, with plenty of pieces left, in the middlegame,
and no compensation. A full 1.00 evaluation from a top engine. I'm
not saying that a 2500 IM would beat *anyone* *100%* of the time

Exactly. So this has absolutely nothing at all to do with *solving*
chess, which would require precisely the knowledge that correct play
would beat anyone 100% of the time.

Proving that White can obtain what looks like an uncompensated one
pawn advantage would give much more evidence than we currently have
that chess is a forced win for White. But it would not solve chess.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Confusing Hungry Dish (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fine ceramic dish but it'll eat you
and you can't understand it!