Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
TwinkleJolly
May 15, 2024
0
#6941
I have a cool DuoLingo flare
May 15, 2024
0
#6951
Twinkle joined chess.com an hour ago.
Two features chess.com needs.
One is venue-blocking. So when you block somebody they're blocked in a specific forum or club or from challenging to a game or from PMing as the blocking person chooses. While retaining the option to globally block too.
Why hasn't chess.com developed that option? Apparently the management believes that people block mainly because whoever doesn't like whoever and so blocking may as well be global. But this is short-sighted because there are many alternative reasons to block. Good reasons.
-------------------------------
The other feature is to give opening posters an option when setting up their public forum - to set a minimum of how long an account has been with chess.com to post in the opening posters public forum.
And also an option to adjust that limit later on too.
-------------------------------
Each of those features would improve chess.com considerably.
The anti-block lobby on the website would hate the first feature because people would use their blocking options more and that lobby would lose power.
But that clique should lose power. They're too harassing of people using their blocking option as it is. And that clique leader of such harassment is deceptive and dishonest. He operates mainly in the clubs though.
May 15, 2024
0
#6952
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@9240
"you claimed every position could be strategy stolen"
++ No, I did not claim that.
I claim that for any tentative strategy to win as black,
there exists a white strategy to win by stealing it.
If 1 e4 c5 were a black win, 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.
There cannot exist a consistent black strategy to win, as white can steal it.
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.
It's really just that strategy stealing is completely irrelevant, since a forced zugzwang for either side would be completely impossible to prove existed even if it hypothetically did exist.
YEP! you are completely correct. i was attempting to show tygxc why his claims of such a proof existing are absurdly wrong.
May 15, 2024
0
#6953
playerafar wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@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.
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.
ur trying logic, and that doesnt work with tygxc.
his claim of the 5 year solution is a result of him double counting a factor of 100 million.
May 15, 2024
0
#6954
@MEGACHE3SEYes - tyg likes to use illogic to push his points and assert himself.
But that's allowed.
Yes I am expressing logic - the fact that tyg rejects logic doesn't mean that logic 'doesn't work'.
Logic is often unpopular. That's known too.
And illogic is exploited heavily in movies and books.
Its more Dramatic. 
@9301
"supercomputers struggle even against just nine pieces on the board
- to solve all possible positions with such. Or was it eight?"
++ That is strongly solving chess for all 8-men positions,
generating an 8-men endgame table base.
We talk here about weakly solving Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
@9302
"I suspect it doesn't lose."
++ Feel free to suggest any white improvement in any of the 3 lines of 1 g4? I presented.
That is how chess analysis works. Black wins in the lines.
So black loses until an improvement for white is found.
That is also how science works: a theory stands until an experiment contradicts it.
@9301
"You have also claimed that all of chess could be solved in five years."
++ Credit where credit is due.
GM Sveshnikov claimed he could weakly solve Chess if given 5 years,
good assistants, and modern computers.
We are now almost there: in the ICCF World Championship Finals the 17 ICCF (grand)masters with their computers at 5 days/move average played 104 draws in 104 games.
May 15, 2024
0
#6958
tygxc wrote:
@9301
"supercomputers struggle even against just nine pieces on the board
- to solve all possible positions with such. Or was it eight?"
++ That is strongly solving chess for all 8-men positions,
generating an 8-men endgame table base.
We talk here about weakly solving Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
'Strongly' solving 8 man positions?
But isn't that with castling excluded?
Plus its not really 'strongly' ...
even adding just one more piece - and the supercomputers struggle.
tyg is essentially contradicting himself.
He is admitting that chess isn't solved.
After 1) g4 there's 32 pieces still on the board.
If its not solving for 9 pieces its not solving for 32 either.
And 9 pieces is uneven material - indicating the supercomputers can't even solve with that in place.
What motivates tyg ...?
Its like an ego thing. He wants to defend a hopeless position ... like a master might offer rooks odds to a 1400 in a money game.
Or play a simul against a bunch of 1400's at rook odds.
----------------------------------
I once saw Carlsen play three good players simultaneously ...
With a clock.
With Carlsen having no board to see.
He checkmated one.
Another ran out of time.
The other resigned in a hopeless position.
It was genius in action.
Carlsen can do things like that.
tyg can't.
tygxc switched from rapid to blitz lol I like how I have a feeling it was to keep his 2100 rapid rating I would like to explain rygxc to explain why even though he's a component for only rapid games ?
May 15, 2024
0
#6960
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
tygxc switched from rapid to blitz lol I like how I have a feeling it was to keep his 2100 rapid rating I would like to explain rygxc to explain why even though he's a component for only rapid games ?
tyg has said something that impressed me though.
When playing - always assume there's tactics in a position until you're sure there's none. (if that's the case. obviously)
That's a very good idea! Well put.
With one extra feature ... in time scrambles sometimes you don't have time to 'make sure there's none'
Could probably be improved too.
Always assume there's more tactics in a position than you've found - until you're sure there isn't any more - for then.