Is Chess Something We Can Solve?

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.

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,

He has demonstrated having the necessary understanding of maths to discuss what is technically a mathematical problem (in the branch of maths called combinatorial game theory).

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.
  @tygxc has mentioned engine evaluations on dozens of occasions and implicitly relied on them in everything he posts. He trusts Stockfish when it ignores the large majority of legal moves based on evaluation. He has for example said that an optimal move will always be in the moves with the top 4 evaluations. There are many other examples. He does combine this with absolute faith in human judgement. For example, he says 1. a4 can be ignored in a solution of chess.
• 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
  General chess knowledge is basically irrelevant to the solution of chess, since only a tiny number of positions have been seen by humans. Solving the positions reached by a chosen opening book is scarcely any easier than solving chess (on a log scale).
• His quotes are not out of context considering they are from masters in their field and pertinent to the topic.
  Relevance to playing chess is not the same as relevance to SOLVING chess.

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

It's not knowledge in the mathematical sense. It is a common belief, thought of as certain by people who don't understand uncertainty. Based on all valid reasoning (rather than bold proclamation and personal feeling), it is merely very likely true, not certain.

(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.

This would be entirely explicable by Stockfish lacking some insight. Its evaluations guide every move by both sides. And if you think Stockfish is near perfect, remember it makes fatal blunders in 7 piece tablebase positions all the time. There are statistical arguments that it is more likely that the optimal result is a draw. All such arguments are uncertain.

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.

I confirm his lack of credibility. He misunderstands what a weak solution is (i.e. apparently accidentally gets the definition wrong) and obstinately refuses to accept the definition of a proof. These facts are not incidental, they are the motivation for his posts, most of which are unfortunately irrelevant to a solution of chess. (Eg it is not ok to ignore 1.a4 because it is "obviously" bad).

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.

You are in the wrong paradigm. Solving a combinatorial game requires rigor.

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.

You have this backwards.

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.

Odd that you have avoided reading all the examples of faults being pointed out in what @tygxc posts.

I have only rough ideas of such.

One class is that of considering the number of errors in games. It is necessary to make assumptions that the distribution of errors is reasonably well behaved. For chess to be a win for one side, the body of theory implies that that side is a lot more likely to make a mistake (even more so if it is black!)

While @tygxc has falsely viewed arguments based on error count to have a place in a proof, they are certainly a good reason to not think it not as likely that one side has a win.

I think he was talking to me @Optimissed, but with the interposition of one of your rare posts, it would have needed some tiny inkling of what the discussion was all about to recognise that.

That's interesting. I'v'e read it in another post.

Can you say what they are or provide a link perhaps?