Chess will never be solved, here's why

Funniest one yet?

Here @tygxc is justifying one of the steps in his faulty reasoning to show chess is a forced draw by starting by assuming the conclusion that chess is a forced draw! Of course, this is a well-known fallacy.

Classic Fallacy 1: Assuming the Conclusion

It's worth drawing attention to another fallacy implicit in almost all of @tygxc's posts, including the above - arguing that something is probable and then assuming it has become certain. He does this twice in above single post! First he thinks "ample evidence" suffices to prove the conclusion that chess is a draw by induction. No. Not a proof. Then he uses "statistical evidence" to justify a claim he then relies on as certain.

This can never be done in a legitimate proof.

Classic Fallacy 2: Appeal to Probability

@5598

"only 10^17 positions will need to be examined" ++ Yes, that is right.

"the last TCEC superfinal games"
++ TCEC has 50 imposed openings chosen to be slightly unbalanced:
not too balanced to avoid all draws, not too unbalanced to avoid win / loss.

"The average length of these games is 74 moves" ++ They play on too long.
In ICCF the humans would agree on a draw sooner when there is no hope for either side to win.

"If all analysis games were the same length, a branching factor (adjusted for transposition) of 3 would give 2x10^35 positions." ++ That is neglecting transpositions, essential in Chess.
As said before: with width w and depth d
Upper bound without transpositions 1 + w + w² + w³ + ... w^d = (w^(d+1) - 1) / (w - 1)
Lower bound with full transpositions 1 + w/1! + w²/2! + w³/3! + ... = e^w, regardless of d
For an estimate take the geometric mean of the upper bound and the lower bound.

"Even a branching factor of 2 would give more than 10^22 positions."
++ Neglecting transpositions.

"the game lengths go up to 135 moves" ++ Because they play on too long.

"To illustrate, the average from 1 to 135 of 2^n is 6.45e38" ++ neglecting transpositions.
This also proves the upper bound is way too high: there are less than 10^32 positions that can result from optimal play by both players.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09386 

Given that it isn't a proof but a strengthening of opinion, it's a reasonable project which, in the old days of science, would be accepted as that. There days, theorists have supplanted scientists to some extent. It doesn't really help because they just cover up their own mistakes. Take the Big Bang, for instance. Big heap twaddle.

@5599

"chess is a forced draw by starting by assuming the conclusion that chess is a forced draw"
++ No. Evidence that Chess is a draw:

1) Expert opinions: Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen.

2) AlphaZero autoplay: more time = more draws, even if stalemate = win

3) TCEC: forced openings to avoid all draws

4) Human top matches and tournaments

5) ICCF WC Finals: g games = d draws + w wins
First assume chess is a forced win. Try to fit a Poisson distribution of errors / game with a probability d / g for an odd number or errors per game. It is impossible.
Consequently assume chess is a draw. Fit a Poisson distribution  of errors / game with a probability w / g for an odd number of errors per game.
It is possible and shows the drawn games are > 99% sure to be perfect games with optimal play by both players and < 1% to contain 2 errors that undo each other.
If you really have a degree in statistics, then you should appreciate this argument.

6) A deductive argument. A tempo in the opening is worth 1/3 of a pawn.
You can queen a pawn, but you cannot queen a tempo. A tempo is not enough to win.
First you say an extra bishop does not win and then you say an extra tempo wins.

^^^^
I wonder if you have ten pages of this stuff, with the same soundbytes repeated in various permutations, stored in a browser on your desktop, so you can grab some of it at random.

Or 20 or 40.

No, he just gets his good assistants to type it for him.

Ignoring the last bit of irrelevant nonsense, that is correct.  What @tygxc is trying to do is "strengthen his opinion". He wants a team of GMs and a few million dollars worth of computational resources to do so.

The problem is equating this with the rigorous solution of the game, like for checkers, connect4 and so on. It just ain't the same.

And here he is again, adding the Fallacy of Excessive Extrapolation and  the Fallacy of Appeal to Inappropriate Authority to the Fallacy of Appeal to Probability to come to the conclusion that chess is a draw. The most that is permissible is to say chess is probably a draw. 

And of course the purpose of the use of this fallacy is to use the "fact" that chess is a draw for further invalid reasoning.

Try to learn something @tygxc, unless you are beyond the stage of life where it is possible to make new neural connections.

I dont know if anyone have mentioned it, but is there a possibility it is a forced win for black aswell? Like in a zugzwang or something. Just a random thought that crossed my mind

The sober answer is that this is not disproven, so should be given at least a tiny bit of credence. It might seem unlikely, but there is no known proof that it is not so.

@5608
"come to the conclusion that chess is a draw"
++ I gave not one but 6 arguments. At least taken together this evidence
compells the mind to accept the fact that chess is a draw as true.
Argument 5 needs understanding of probability.
Argument 6 is deductive.

@5609
"is there a possibility it is a forced win for black aswell? Like in a zugzwang or something."
++ No. Argument 5 takes that possibility into account, it is impossible to explain in a consistent way the data with the assumption that chess were a win for white or black.

It runs contrary to the observation that the initiative i.e.
+1 tempo in the initial position forms some kind of advantage, albeit insufficient to win.

It would also lead to contradictions by strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a win for black, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a white win.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win,
then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win.

Correction. It compels your mind. Not mine or that of anyone precise.

This is because you do not understand that 6 unreliable arguments don't add up to 1 reliable argument. [They add up to greater confidence, not infinitely greater].

The fact that you think a tiny sample of games by imperfect players leads to a deduction that chess is a draw shows you don't know what deduction is.

Gli scacchi sono una palestra di compassione. Io non so esprimere la frustrazione che provo quando perdo la regina o la partita per una svista (ma non abbandono MAI), mi sento umiliato, immagino l'altro che ride di me. Quando invece la perde il mio avversario mi sento magnanimo e sportivo. Ma non è vero. Fino a che provo quella sofferenza significa che sotto sotto vincere mi dà un grande piacere prevaricatorio. Quando sarò in grado di vincere senza godere... Sarò in grado di perdere senza soffrire. È lo sport. Dove accade troppo spesso che l'amore per il gioco cede il passo al desiderio di battere l'avversario.

@5613

"They add up to greater confidence"
++ Death sentences have been based on 99% probability of matching DNA samples.

"a tiny sample of games" ++ Over 1000 ICCF WC Finals draws.

"by imperfect players" ++ The argument shows > 99% of the ICCF WC draws to be perfect play

 "leads to a deduction that chess is a draw" ++ It is the only way to explain the observed data

"what deduction is" ++ The deductive argument is argument 6.

@5592

++ The good assistants only occasionally intervene and only if they are sure.

Isn't it possible to be sure and wrong at the same time?

I am in agreement, substantially if not completely. Chess is a draw, with complete confidence.

I see that's not a question for me.