Chess will never be solved, here's why

@9269

"We do not have proofs that any model applies to the real world"
++ We do have such proof: models are applied to the real world all the time:
we build buildings, bridges, cars, airplanes, spaceships, computers... all by applying models.
Even the Pythagorean theorem was thought of to establish land boundaries after Nile flooding.
Thales's theorem was thought of to measure the height of the Great Pyramid.

@9270

"If a player who blunders once in 1000 games plays a 100 game match"
++ That is besides the question. When 17 qualified ICCF (grand)masters with engines at 5 days/move play 104 games in the ICCF World Championship Finals, all draws,
then that is enough to conclude all these 104 games are perfect games with no error.

It does not say they played perfectly last year (they did not, there were a few decisive games),
or that they will play perfectly next year (maybe one tries too hard to win and loses a game).

@9271

"1) g4 does not 'lose by force'."
++ It does. 1 g4? is the worst first white move and the only one that loses by force.

@9263

"the total number of possible chess games, that is almost certainly greater than 10^10000"
++ The numberr of possible chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082.
https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html

The number of legal positions is 4.82 * 10^44,
but as the 3 samples show, multiple underpromotions make no sense.
https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking

The number of legal positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured is 4 * 10^37 and the vast majority of those makes no sense either.
https://univ-avignon.hal.science/hal-03483904

Weakly solving needs only half a forest, hence the square root of the number of positions.
Thus 10^17 positions suffice to weakly solve Chess.

@9282

"proofs do NOT apply to the real world"
++ Only the real world exists. Abstract concepts only exist within the human mind.
They stem from the real world and they are applied to the real world.

@9281

"you showed a game where it lost but a game isn't a proof is it?"
++ I showed 3 games, all ending in 7-men endgame table base wins.
Feel free to suggest any white improvement.

@9285

Models like the Schrödinger equation have been derived from experiments in the real world and are applied to the real world e.g. computers.
Some abstract concepts in the human mind have no link to the real world, e.g. transfinite numbers.

you literally did claim it.
"There cannot exist a consistent black strategy to win, as white can steal it."

there's you claiming it again. unless you prove it individually, every possible position is a possible black win. this is logic that 10 year olds could understand.

"If 1 e4 c5 were a black win, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a white win."

false, black doesnt go e5, black goes e4.

you really are so blind that you think you can choose where black moves?

you have to prove that NO MATTER WHERE black moves you can steal the strategy.

your logic is the equivalent of claiming that chess is always a win for white because "e4 e5 Bc4 Bc5 Qh5 Nf6 Qxf7##" wins for white.

wow tygxc submitting a completely false proof as per usual.

NF3 NF6 is the consistent black strategy to win.

steal it.

"++ That is besides the question. When 17 qualified ICCF (grand)masters with engines at 5 days/move play 104 games in the ICCF World Championship Finals, all draws,
then that is enough to conclude all these 104 games are perfect games with no error"

thats not a proof lmfao

prove it.

tygxc being completely oblivious to the concept of proof as per usual

Why is this thread still going?? The first reply on this already answered it

theres a guy who has a fantasy of having already solved chess who's been claiming he's right despite people explaining why every single claim of his is wrong for 3 years, hes just too stupid and stubborn to admit he's wrong.

sorry, 3 games isnt enough, you need to show all ~10^14 games, as I suggest every possible white move.

stay calm and see this

tyg - you haven't proven this.
You have also claimed that all of chess could be solved in five years.
You haven't proven that either.
You won't. You won't prove either one.
-------------------------------------
Early in this forum it seemed to be established that rooms full of supercomputers struggle even against just nine pieces on the board - to solve all possible positions with such. Or was it eight?
They cannot do it.
Has that changed in the last two years?
The 'order of difficulty' just increases much too much with each additional added piece.
--------------------------------------
After 1) g4 there are still 32 pieces on the board.
Daunting.
Like space travel to the nearest next galaxy.
Humanity would have serious difficulty even accomplishing unmanned space travel to the nearest other star.