Chess will never be solved, here's why

@9557

"when they still have room to improve"
Jockeyed by a human ICCF (grand)master they now reached perfection at 5 days / move average.
Maybe future engines can do the same at 5 hours/move, or 5 minutes/move, or 5 seconds/move.
Maybe they can do it with artificial intelligence instead of a human jockey.

@9520

"Optimal play is not determinable by either you, or engines."
++ The 105 ICCF World Championship games are optimal play, not by the engines used,
nor by me, but by the results themselves: 105 draws in 105 games.

"It will be determinable once chess is solved" ++ That is where we now about are.
Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition. The strategy to achieve the game theoretic value of the draw against any opposition is to follow an ICCF World Championship Finals drawn game for as long as possible and then proceed with an engine at 5 days / move until a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached.

I played 604 (that's even lesser than 960) blitz games on Lichess and I can recall some of them setups being really sharp and give greater advantage to the side that opens the game than another.

As I mentioned before and what I believe would be fair is that players build up their starting positions with one piece at a time with the white starting where black is not forced to follow symmetrically.

@9480

"I tried 10. Ncb5" ++ It does not matter. If white plays differently, then white loses differently.
1 g4? loses while it weakens the king's side.

with a 7-men endgame table base win.

@9566

"Two tempi isn't enough to win." ++ That is correct. White can play 1 h3 and 2 a3 and still hold the draw. The problem with 1 g4? is not tempi, or is not losing the pawn, but is weakening the king's side. White can no longer comfortably castle O-O to bring the king to safety and connect the rooks. Castling gains 2 tempi: 3 moves Kf0, Rf1, Kg1 at the cost of 1 move O-O.

"++ Chess is known to be a draw." known, but not proven. ask any mathematician.

"++ The 105 ICCF World Championship games are optimal play, not by the engines used,
nor by me, but by the results themselves: 105 draws in 105 games."

thats not a proof of optimization.

try again

tygxc why do you continue to ignore the suggestion of trying literally every possible white move after g4? by definition a mathematical proof addresses all of these.

you are still yet to give your math education. you claim to know better than all of the math professionals that ive talked to, so surely you can give your own math publishes?

Of course, right moves always converge to the similar patterns, the same in the classical chess as in the 960 fischer random. It is in the feature of the pieces movement which is the same in both variants.

What you underestimate or you are not aware of is the potential of a random position that could be decisive in some cases. Standard chess starting position is definitely not the most versatile, I experienced this in my own games.

@9565

"ed looks better"

++ It does not matter. If white plays differently, then white loses differently. After 1 g4? the loss may take long, but is just as inevitable as after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5?

with checkmate in 18.

@9572

"the suggestion of trying literally every possible white move after g4?"
++ There is no need to. 1 g4? loses just like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5?
Please feel free and try to find an improvement for white and analyse for yourself with any engine.

@9575

'White is surviving and black is running out of pieces.'
++ White is not surviving. After 1 g4? the loss is inevitable.
Each piece traded brings the 7-men endgame table base win closer.

With a 6-men endgame table base win.

@9579

"1. g4 is a very bad move"
++ Yes, 1 g4? is the worst possible first move, and the only one that loses.

"that probably doesn't lose by force"
++ 1 g4? loses by force. Please present your own line where in the end white holds the draw.
That is how chess analysis works. One side tries to win, one side tries to draw.
In the end one side succeeds and one side fails. The failing side must find an improvement.
If the failing side cannot find an improvement that succeeds, then proof is final.

1. g4 is top, change my mind

@9581

1 g4? loses by force. I presented several lines that win for black.
Please provide your own improved line that holds the draw for white.

no

@9585

"You haven't shown that it definitely loses." ++ I have presented several lines.

"There are always objections." ++ Present no objections, present a line that draws.

"I don't need to present lines" ++ I do not need to either, but I did nevertheless, you did not.

"you are merely arguing from authority" ++ I am not arguing from authority. I could say I am higher rated than you, so I know better than you, but I did not, I went through the effort.

"My objection holds." ++ It does not. You did not present a single line that holds.

If it had only been one or two I wouldn't be convinced, but as long as it is several lines, no-one will be able to argue. I am pretty sure that the definition of solving a position is to deal with three possible combinations of responses by the opponent, so several should be plenty.

[SARCASM ALERT]

That's pretty good sarcasm.
The forum could be used for 'sarcasm workout' ...
'weakly solved' ... what is that like?
How about 'squaring the circle'?
Is it weakly solved?
Hey you could take all the atoms in the circle and re-arrange them in a square ...
Is that 'weakly solving'?
I don't think its monthly solving either - or millenial solving - or era solving - or Big Bang solving ....
On squaring the circle there's no solving ... 
But yes - they're 'working on it'.
---------------------------------------------------------------
if one were to argue that chess is mathematical (its other things too) and 'winning' and 'drawing' are close enough to 'solving' then such results are mathematical.
Rigorously and absolutely defined.
Its either 'solved' or its not.
There's a lot of 'A or B' in mathematics when it refers to itself
and mathematics when referring to things that exist - its rather 'adjectival' as it were.
Trees - rocks - water 'exist' but math can describe or refer to them - usually approximately. Math can refer to reality whereas the ethereal can't ... like reverse time travel for example.
-----------------------------------------------
But when math is referencing itself - it becomes absolute or perfect much of the time.
So chess 'weakly solved' just doesn't look right.
Chess too close to math for that idea to be valid.
That terminology is used - but its bad terminology.
Weakly subdivided and classified would be better.
tygxc trying to exploit the faults in the semantics.
With some success.
He's getting Attention.
For years now.