Chess will never be solved, here's why

There we are.

For experiment, one side (let's say is a perfect player who wants the game ends in a draw for this purpose) could build all his/their/her strategy around the fact that two Knights alone can't win.

That alone proves is a draw.

Now imagine all possible draw fortresses there exist evaluated from +3 to +7 that ends in a draw, take R+P vs Q endgame just for an example to not mention other.

The resources for a draw for a perfect player are abundant.

Now imagine how broad just is a road that leads to a draw for a perfect player.

Let that sink in.

The method of elimination eliminates it all.

I rest my case here

The leeway afforded by the fact that such an amount of greater material can still be a forced draw is definitely the best argument for chess being a forced draw, but it is not conclusive.  To be conclusive, you would have to prove that black (or white) can force trades and exchanges to achieve a forced draw while down a piece, or two knights.  This requires removing all pawns from play while not allowing too great a material advantage.

You could posit a forcing strategy where black plays not really to maintain equilibrium, but to immediately and solely to remove all of white's pawns and exchange pieces down to a draw, but it is highly doubtful this strategy could be achieved without losing too much material in the process.  Thus, black plays to maintain parity, and if an opportunity arises to trade quickly down into a drawn ending, black can then take it...but not force it to happen.

You're trying to blind tygxc with meaningless and irrelevant blurb. All this shoo and run along now is for real. It sums you up ....  you're extremely childish. You should have learned by now that it's unnecessary to pursue your argument with tygxc. Don't do it. It doesn't look good for you.

You can take it as an insult if it helps you to deal with it, but it's an observation. Jalex is apparently 14 and he's a lot more mature than you.

#3990

"That is _NOT_ a general rule." ++ Pawn up = win is a general rule, but there are exceptions.

"It is highly position dependent."
++ Everything depends on position, even queen up is no win facing imminent checkmate.

"Likewise rook endings, and others." ++ Yes some rook endings with 1 or even 2 pawns down are sometimes drawn, and some opposite colored bishop endings even 3 or more pawns down and fortresses. That only adds evidence to chess being a draw. Even if white could miraculously convert his 1 tempo to 1 pawn, he must do it in a way that steers clear of the safe havens.

"pawn sacrifices are common" ++ Not common, but they do happen.
The Catalan, the Two Knights Defence, the Marshall, the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn.
However, the sacrifice must provide sufficient compensation.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 provides no compensation at all and can be dismissed.

"they can be sound (1. e4 e5 2. f4)" ++ 'It loses by force' - Fischer, 'I could not find a way for white to equalise' - Kramnik '23.4% black wins, 6.3% white wins' - AlphaZero Figure 4. (d)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf

"So all your rule needs to become useful is a way to figure out which of the 10^40 or so positions it is true for and which it is false for." ++ No, I do not start with a set of 10^44 legal positions and then start to apply any rules on these.
Just like Losing Chess and Checkers have been weakly solved it is a calculation from the starting tabiya towards the 7-men endgame table base.
The good assistants launch the calculation and also stop it when they would agree on a draw or resign in a real correspondence game.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses a bishop for no compensation.
It is a sure loss for white, no doubt at all. So it can be dismissed.
1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1 is nonsense, does not try to win and thus can be dismissed,
though it probably still is a draw.
1 a4 does nothing for the center and does not develop any piece and weakens square b4,
so it cannot be better than 1 d4 or 1 e4 and can be dismissed.

Your self awareness is lacking, as always.  You look worse every time you engage with me without my having directed anything your way.  Take your own advice, and work on your own maturity.

Logically; and I know you're a big one for logic; I'm not advising myself. I'm advising you.

There was no need to continue your argument with tygxc. He is not going to alter his opinions. Accept that.

#3997
"There was no need to continue your argument with tygxc. He is not going to alter his opinions."
++ Why? There has been no valid counterargument of any kind.

1) A single tempo is not enough to win and TCEC, ICCF, AlphaZero and human GM games confirm it: chess is a draw. Sveshnikov and others were right.

2) Weakly solving chess requires less positions 10^17 than strongly solving 10^44.
Losing Chess was weakly solved with 10^9 positions and Checkers with 10^14 positions.
Sveshnikov was right: existing computers can weakly solve chess in 5 years.

Oh, I'm completely convinced that chess is a draw and in that respect, I think computers encourage lazy thinking.  I was becoming irritated because although I disagree with you on the 5 year thing, btickler isn't going to change your mind. If I can't get you to change it and Elroch can't, btickles won't. I think he wants to be the one, going down in history as the man who made tygxc change his mind. If Shveshnikov were still alive and he changed his mind, would that convince you?

Anyway I have a man visiting in half an hour and I have to put some stamps in a stockbook extremely fast, for a swap for, I think, some old farthings.

I don't aspire to change any crackpot's mind, yours or his.  It's not possible to reason with somebody who is unreasonable.  The goal is to show that cracked pottery to everyone else, so they do not become crackpots themselves.

I cant tell if you guys love or hate each other that must be why they say its a thin line.  Its like an abusive relationship where they keep going back anyway.  That's kind of what i said before though if you cant even agree on what words mean what makes you think you can agree on this ever.  We could have the 32 piece table base floating on a alien spacecraft that literally has the answers people would still be like " nah not buying it fam" . 

Exercises for a reader more capable of reasoning clearly than @tygxc:

1. Exhibit a position where a single tempo is sufficient to win (i.e. having the move makes the difference between winning and not winning)
2. Exhibit a position where a single tempo is sufficient to lose (i.e. having the move makes the difference between losing and not losing). [Hint:  in chess theory this has a German name beginning with "Z"].

He means "tiny sample" in comparison with the total number of possible positions. He didn't make that clear, possibly because he expects you to inductively reason that it is so.

I don't think it's correct to include all possible positions because most are irrelevant. Therefore the sample is not so tiny, presumably consisting of all played games between masters..

Obviously in endings or other zugzwangs, a tempo may be crucial in either direction. Again I must side with tygxc because after all, this is the internet. It isn't a treatise or dissertation. Again, it's possible to work out what he means.

There are about four or five people of a similar ilk. They don't take me seriously at all. I'm not one of them.

Thank Heavens.

So, strictly speaking, it is not a general rule. How many exceptions, in percentage?

Unproven.

Appeal to authority.

Afaik, in checkers (a simpler game than chess) some openings are considered "trivial" and they had not been checked when the game was announced solved. There is ongoing computation to solve them too, though. Losing chess has been solved from the initial position, as you well know.

They cannot check all the lines a computer would search in 5 years, so it could evaluate as worse lines that in fact are better and prune them, according to an algorithm (sort of) you have provided (which cuts off lines on the basis of unproven assumptions), without the good assistants being able to intervene.

Repetition. Unproven.

Unproven.

Non sequitur. It is not proved that those strategic rules are good for any situation. 1. a4 gives a worse expected score in practical play; that does not imply its game-theoretic value is lower than 1. d4 or 1. e4. It has to be proven by a "formal" proof, as you call it.

Your usual "provability is a higher degree of truth" is an ambiguous, out of the context statement, which does not say anything about the possibility to know that unproven things are true; and you said you read it on Scientific American, but do not remember the exact reference, therefore nobody can falsify you.

I'm glad you feel you've worked it out. I'm beginning to side with the people who think you're all barmy, arguing amongst yourselves like this. I must be starting to forget who says what and whether it matters. The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't be arguing in this way. If tygxc is as crazy as some are claiming then you should have some respect. If he isn't, you should also have some respect. Best to give it a rest.

What isn't obvious is whether a temp could be crucial in either direction in positions that are beyond analysis. And that is what matters to this discussion.

Why should it matter to this discussion, since we've already agreed that losses are due to mistakes; and therefore crucial tempi gains or losses are also due to mistakes, if they cause a loss of the game?

Site isn't working again. Don't think it's my browser. Delete post button has also disappeared and I'm sure I didn't hit the quote button. I think I hit edit but it posted my edit as quoting myself. Can't delete it so replacing it with this. This is further to the other day when it posted a completely scrambled post with superimposed writing, images etc.

Chess is solved I solved it, you're all noobs