Chess will never be solved, here's why

@9184

Meanwhile debaters here still fail to understand the difference between ultra-weakly,
weakly, and strongly solved, and how one is not needed for the other.

Meanwhile 104 perfect games, all draws.
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104

Prof. Van den Herik was the world's authority on solving games.
GM Sveshnikov was the world's authority on engine analysis.
There is no need for 3 grandmasters:
in the ICCF finals we have 17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days/move.

All of them imperfect.

@9188

104 games where both participants play optimally.
For the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value of a draw against any opposition: follow an ICCF WC draw for as long as possible and then proceed with an engine and an ICCF (grand)master at 5 days per move until a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached.

They drew, therefore their play was optimal.

Dysfunctional thinking - all you can legitimately justify is some sort of uncertain belief that they played optimally.

There is absolutely no question that both participants are unable to see far enough to avoid the horizon problem. And where both are unreliable, the combination of both of them is unreliable.

In addition, when one game gives you uncertain information, more than one game cannot give you certain information - merely less uncertain information.

Some day you need to learn about uncertainty rather than living your life blind to reality. I recommend E.T. Jaynes - Probability Theory: the Logic of Science.

@9190

"both participants are unable to see far enough to avoid the horizon problem"
++ There is no need to see far enough, there is only a need to select among the legal moves a move that does not worsen the game state from draw to loss.

@9192

"Chess doesn't work that way" ++ It does. Read Games solved: Now and in the future by Prof. Van den Herik: there is a large section about chess.

"no-one plays the MB in Correspondence chess." ++ For good reason.

"the MB is considered nearly unsound, although it probably doesn't lose."
++ It loses, already Hans Berliner said so.

Of course. You can be certain of anything, without adequate justification. Such certainty can be wrong. Quantified in terms of cross-entropy, this is an infinitely bad mistake. For example, you can be certain that battery acid is a great thing to drink, drink a pint of it based on your certainty and learn that the certainty was unjustified. 

I referred to what could be justified. The relevant class of examples is that that which can be deduced from axioms that are assumed to be true using logical deduction is certain (conditional on the truth of the assumed axioms). In chess, such axioms would be the rules of chess, and a conclusion could be an evaluation of a position as a win, draw or loss. Sometimes this can be achieved, other times not practically. And that is the case for the initial position, as you agree.

wow, funny how you dont address any of what i said in the slightest

none of those games are confirmed to be perfect, what are you smoking?

basically everyone here knows exactly what you are saying, they have just found the holes in your "logic". you are either too stubborn, or too stupid, or both, to admit that you are wrong in so many ways.

the biggest tragedy in all of this is that tygxc's false claims are now starting to show up on google searches, now people are going to be misled.
dont forget how tygxc's ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based off of a calculation error where he claims that for each of the nodes of a computer that performs 1 move per minute at a supposed 99% accuracy, he claims that EACH of the nodes ALL have a 99% accuracy.

hes literally off in his calcualtions by a factor of over a million.

I mean, i have already solved it....

Who do you think created the chess engines that analyse your games on chess.com?

Who do you think made Magnus give up his World Championship title and run away?

Who do you think created this game?

I did!.

alright Tygxc, how do you strategy steal this position, remember, you claimed that ANY starting position can be strategy stolen.

btw tygxc, evne your example of a position that could be strategy stolen doesnt work either. you forced black to move the pawn 2 spaces when it doesnt have to.

@9204

"If I come across the Herik book"

++ It is no book, it is a scientific article.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527

@9195

"the game state assumes a perfect evaluation" ++ Yes.

"which you don't have" ++ I have the 7-men endgame table bases with their perfect evaluation.
White tried to win, black tried to draw. They reach a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition. Black succeeded, white failed. All black's moves are justified in retrospect.

"What you do have is an imperfect evaluation which is very useful but not 100% reliable."
++ The perfect evaluation comes from reaching the 7-men endgame table base, or a prior 3-fold repetition.

"there have been losses for agents just like those participating now"
++ Yes, but each year fewer and fewer. Now 100% draws.

dude how are you so stupid to see how circular your logic is.
"chess is a draw with perfect play"
"this is perfect play because it ended with a draw"

no its that tygxc as usual is completely misunderstanding and deliberately misconstruing what the article says lol.

im still baffled at how you can justify this to yourself.
they reach a draw, so their play was perfect!?!?!?
by that logic, all my games that were draws had no errors on black's end.

absolute buffoonery.

im noticing how you cant address my other points tygxc. probably because they arent convenient to your.... idk your fantasy? thats all that i can think of to describe your position on chess's solvability. a fantasy. or an elaborate troll

not a single article you cite is taken in the correct context

egs: a gm claiming that computers will bridge the gap between mid game and end game theory -> you claiming hes talking about solving chess completely?!?!?! random chess computer databases of high level computer play. --> perfect chess play!??! (your logic is literally "according to this game engine, this SAME game engine made the best move")

not a single calculation you make is without basic errors
egs: your calculation of move speed accuracy is off by a factor of 100 million, because you double counted nodes as moves. read the article you cited, its one move per minute at a supposed 90+% accuracy, with 100 million nodes, not 100 million nodes each making one move per minute each at 90%+ accuracy.

Not a single mathematical concept is used correctly.
egs: you claiming that chess errors follows poisson distribution despite it only following one of the four properties needed, you claiming differences between ultra weak and weakly solved despite your "proofs" failing to actually take those differences into consideration. your complete lack of understanding how parity and zugzwang make strategy stealing impossible.

Chess be solved before 2040. 32.men EGTB isn't needed. 20 men EGTB and Expanding Opening Theory will meet in the middle. Some opening position is a clear win for one side.

Ofc with best play by both colors will end in.a draw.