Chess will never be solved, here's why

Projection again.

 "Using axioms like "the game-theoretic value of the game is a draw" and "this strategy is superior over that other" to prove in fact the axioms themselves, is a fallacy known as "begging the question"."
I think its also called circular reasoning.  And its a form of illogic.
@Haiaku is correct as usual. 
But @tygxc will 'get away with it' in a double-edged sense.
He won't concede anything - but continues to be exposed.

@tygxc is a very good chess player.  
In conversations that resemble chess games ... a square and what's on it (issue in the conversation) can be contested - or conceded - or ... simply shift activity to another square.
Each square can be considered to be a kind of game in itself.
So anytime @tygxc looks like he might be 'in trouble' on a particular square ...  he can simply shift his responses slightly. 
The other person 'waits' for a response but there isn't one.
So the closest @tygxc comes to concession - is silence.
What is very paradoxical about this though - is he is able to do this quite civilly.
More about that in a minute - but first:
we got this a few pages ago:

Various ideas:
1) 'how to debate' can be typed on google search
2) 'debate' is a broadly-used term on the website. 
There are few if any conversations on this website that are like proper debates in debating societies in Universities.
Nor even approaching the organization in political debates on TV between politicians running against each other for election to high political office.
In a 'true' debate you might even see the two sides switch positions.
Each 'team' will take the opposite position they took in the first debate and then the debate happens a second time.  But differently.
A panel that does not include any member of the two debate teams will vote on a 'winner' of each debate.  Plus maybe 'grade' the teams.
That panel also moderates.  Applies rules.  Maintains decorum and so on.

///////////////////////////
Again:

That post was addressed to @tygxc - not 'somebody'.
Point:  It seems that @tygxc has not responded to @Haiaku 's reminder of providing a 'paper'.  
If anybody tries to do @tygxc 's answering For him ...
after the conversation had already 'converged' on @Haiaku 's reminder to @tygxc ...
well the result of that is definitely more 'circles' because it greatly enhances @tygxc 's opportunity to sidestep the reminder.  Or obfuscates it.
But - extra ironic ...  interference by that third person - is from that same third person who bitterly complains about 'circles'.  

Again:  from @Haiaku to @tygxc 

Has there been any indication here that @tygxc has read that response 'paper' and responded to that reminder?
Just repeating den Herik's definition over and over is 'dodging'.
@tygxc 'interpreted' den Herik's definition.

But @tygxc has no compelling obligation to consider the other paper provided.
Even in a proper debating society in a University - he would not have to do so.
Nor in a court of law in front of a jury.
He might have to acknowledge official 'receipt' of the paper -
which is called 'Discovery' I believe ...
or - has to indicate whether he accepts or objects to 'Exhibit A' or whatever.

but in jurisdictions - a lawyer is not directly compelled to read evidence.
He could lose business - get his reputation hurt ...  but would any judge anywhere have grounds to find him in contempt or get him disbarred ?
Extent of obligation: 
"Your Honor - I acknowledge to the Court that Defense has no objection to Exhibit A."
He then can ignore Exhibit A completely if he chooses.

Here's another circular assertion from @tygxc 
From post #177 - way back in January:  Here:  https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=9#comment-67001537

"Checkers was solved by only the square root of the number of legal positions. Hence it is plausible to apply the square root in chess too to account for all positions rendered irrelevant."
No its Not.  Nice try though.  
How many of these has he made? 
Maybe they can all be summarized in one list.

'adjective' yes. 
But the constant and consistent projection from the individual is remarkable. 
Every time he does something - its 'the other person doing it'. 
Close to 100% of the time.  He'll even project his projecting too.   
But that's part of chronic projection though. 
If he admits it - how can he continue?
It might even extend to his trying to deter use of the word.
One is not to say it ? 
And 'is not to disagree with him nor criticize any post he makes'? 
A kind of 'emperor has no clothes but you mustn't say it' situation.

#3046
"Provability is a higher degree of truth.
I asked if you can provide papers supporting this statement, because we use in general only two values of truth: true and false. Are you sure you did not mistake "provability" for "probability", reading something about fuzzy logic? "
++ Yes, I am sure the phrase was 'provability is a higher degree of truth'. It figured in a feature article in Scientific American about unsolved mathematical problems including at that time Fermat's Last Theorem. It also discussed ramifications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
I cannot unfortunately provide volume, no., or page: I have no eidetic memory allowing total recall.

And now 'Godel' too?  (some assert that Kurt Godel effectively argued or 'proved' for a real possibility of 'reverse time travel' ?)
'Godel' help us !!

Actually Truth is a higher level of provability.

This is only slightly ironic: in mathematics, this is meaningful because of the existence of alternative axiomatisations. Goedel's incompleteness theorem showed that no finite scheme of axioms can fully represent any mathematical system sufficiently rich to include the natural numbers.

What happens in practice is that any given axiom scheme in incomplete in that there are statements about the natural numbers that true but not provable in that scheme. An axiom can be added to fix such a hole, but there will always be another example.

To avoid any confusion note that this does no harm to the present discussion. We are talking about very simple statements that would be provable in any formal system representing the finite structure of chess. This is _much_ simpler in a fundamental sense than the natural numbers, which are intrinsically infinite.  But what we are discussing is a formal proof of a fact about this finite structure called "chess" (with some chosen rule set). That is the strict and appropriate meaning of "solve".

Hi @Elroch !
Regarding 'proof' and its realities:
There's something that could be called 'objective proof' and there's lots of that around.
But then there's a flip side of proof.
Which isn't quite like the silliness of "if a tree falls in the forest but there's nobody around to hear it then it makes no sound" ...
not quite as 'silly' as that.

It goes like this:  its a kind of analysis of 'proof' behaviour.
And some optional connotations of the word 'proof'.
I'll put it as a question:
Does 'proof' require cooperation from the person to whom something might or might not be proved to?
I would say ...  Yes.  Its not proof unless whoever finds it such.
Even the proof there is no greatest prime number -
a very very Neat proof ...
well whoever can simply refuse to follow the logic of it.
"No - that's Not Proof !"  And then even assign his own 'defaults'.
We've seen that here.  

It's probably worth bearing in mind the notion of a mechanised proof. This is one where the axioms are encoded and every logical step verified by computer in full detail.

Normal mathematical proofs have the character that they could feasibly be mechanised.

For example, this has been done for both of Goedel's main theorems.

I looked at that linked site for a bit.
'Mechanized proof'.
Could a computer prove the 'no greatest prime' argument ?

I would guess yes.  Using computerization of mathematical logic.
But only a guess.  I would think the computer would need much 'help' from a human programmer - to so prove.  
Makes me wonder - do computers solve differential equations ... and very tough integrals - where just substituting values for variables in  formulas isn't going to work ... ?
Maybe differential equations have changed a lot nowadays ...

Not only "could", pretty sure that has been done. I think all of Euclid has been mechanised. Here is a paper about mechanical verification of book I.

Even there - 'proof' to whoever might still 'require cooperation' by the provee.
Yes - I realize that the 'proof' still exists if whoever refuses to accept it.
But there's something about the word that connects with 'it takes two to tango'.
Pi would still be a constant without anybody around to know that it is.
Einstein apparently didn't need anybody to agree with him initially or at all - for his fundamentals to exist and be valid.
(ein ...  a ... 'one')
But for 'proof' something about that word implies 'at least two persons participating and with some degree of cooperation'. 

Regarding a chess engine defeating itself after being given material odds ...
Perhaps it would be better to have it play such against different engines.
Otherwise - it supports its own flaws.
In the research projects though - maybe that would slow down the 'solved' stuff too much.

Interesting paper. (Only twelve to go.)

I am not sure about my claim. I thought I recalled that being done, but I may be mistaken.

Here is some earlier work that addresses books I to IV: 

https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/formal_system_for_euclids_elements.pdf

That is post 2 of this forum - three months ago and over 3000 posts ago.
There's an attempt at an analogy between solving chess and a manned mission to Mars.
That doesn't prove anything of course.
And in that post @tygxc doesn't qualify with 'weakly' solving.
Its a kind of 'provocative dogbone'. 

Has @tygxc conceded anything at all yet?
Has he conceded that 'strong' solving isn't feasible?
Not exactly.  In his post 2 he didn't specify 'strong'.  
So no.  Nothing conceded.  Not one point.

Regarding 10 to the 9th power computer - implying a billion positions solved per second - that doesn't hold up at all.
I didn't say he said that though.
A node isn't a 'position solved'.  

If the computer could do a billion 'somethings' per second ...
and you put that up against 10 to the 44th positions.
Even if - the 'something' was solving a position - 
it would still take 10 to the 35th seconds.
Which is more than 3000 trillion trillion years.
If it was 10 to the 37th positions ... then it would still take over
30 million trillion years.
But a node is not 'solving a position' ...
so it would take a lot longer than 30 million trillion years.

@tygxc is essentially still maintaining  that 'it'
"takes 5 years on cloud engines.". 
He has the same position 3 months later.
But what is 'it' ?
'It' may be nothing.  
If solution is to be 'weak' that could mean chess already is solved as in 
"chess is a draw unless somebody makes a mistake that can be exploited enough to force a win - except when that's not the case and its a win anyway"
In which case 5 years and cloud computers are both irrelevant.
So with a range of 'weak' possibilities that extends from 'already solved' all the way up to much more than 30 million trillion years -
then 5 years and cloud computers is random and arbitrary.

Another way to say this:
Could all of @tygxc's posts be 'skipped' except for his first posting here five years ago ?  Because they're all essentially repetitions.
And post 2 at best is saying that chess can be solved but it could take over 30 million trillion years to do so.
And since the number of possible positions is finite -
then indeed it could be.  And can be.
No bogus time needs to be added to support a possibility of 'solved'.
Its a finite number of positions - so it can be solved.
But that doesn't mean it will be.

Point:  @tygxc 's post can be divided into two sections.
Concerning a possibility of solving - but that's already known because the number of positions is finite.
What's he's trying to do is argue that it can be solved by assigning a bogus time to it.  Its like he's venturing a proof by assigning an unfounded time period.

Can the Andromeda galaxy be reached?
Yes.  'It takes two months using faster than light travel.'
If that had been his initial post in a forum about reaching Andromeda - how much response would that have deserved and gotten?
None.  So what's actually different about his post 2?
Cloud computers exist whereas faster than light travel doesn't?
Doesn't hold up.
Space travel exists - but no computers exist that can solve a billion positions per second.
So it looks like his post 2 fails.  It makes an assertion with no basis.
Still - it gets a lot of attention anyway 
Maybe that will continue.  

Then concede to take that statement as unreferenced. Anyway, if the statement was true, a proof could not be true at a higher degree than a knowledge already 100% true, and an axiom cannot be used to prove the axiom itself, like you do.

"and an axiom cannot be used to prove the axiom itself, like you do."
'trying' to do. For three months. 
Failing - but controlling the forum anyway.
and he's got Nerve - pushing same.  
Is another 1000 posts of that coming up ?