Chess will never be solved, here's why

"with the engines we have" is a key part in my sentence

But that's not a proof.

You said "it has actually been proven". It has not been proven, as I have just explained.

BigChess the NewKid made thoughtless judgements without having info about the O-person being blocked in three big forums by Elroch and Dio.
Also BigChess made false accusations about my posting about chess here.
If he had been watching he would have seen my proofs about a factor of 500 for time taken multiplying itself in as pieces are added to the tablebases.
So he didn't know and made the accusation or did know and did so.
Either way - he lied.
So BigChess is thoughtless and lies and acts out on it - in other words his posts are idiotic. Therefore there is about zero obligation to read them.
Becoming more and more established.
But BC 'sees himself' in the O-person's foolish narcissism.
Explains why he wanted to suck up to O ...
But that dynamic seems to be 'having difficulties' now.

Your also a troll though please talk normally and not be rage inducing

Playerafar can do better than be a measly insulting troll lol

Btw I asked him "why play no chess only talk on forums"

He gaslighted me and tried to clame hypocrisy lol  He has problem of "feeding" the people he thinks are trolls 

mpaetz - like Dio and Elroch and Mar-attigan almost always makes great posts.
Dio always wins over the conceited O-character. That's @Optimissed.
Every single time.
Almost every single Post!
Its like watching an F-16 fighter jet blowing up farm outhouses and tricycles.
Similiar with Fester versus the O-pathetic narcissist and Elroch versus that same non-optimissed person.
Elroch and Dio have zero cause to be at odds.
And its the O-person who would like to get forums locked that he can't own.
Not Dio.
----------------------------
And mpaetz is of course correct.
Elroch's argument Zapped tygxc's claim.
But tygxc has courage.
He doesn't 'beat' Elroch's acutely on-point posts ...
But tygxc always holds himself up against all comers.
Many people don't perceive that.
But I think tygxc is well aware of it.
Its part of the dynamics of the situation. Part of how he does it.
I realized it almost immediately two years ago.
But wasn't sure how to act on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anyway folks - adding just one piece to the basic tablebases multiplies the positions involved by over 500 each time.
Because there's a variation of one of ten types of piece to be added each time ...
and with only 8 pieces on the board addressed for now (not even thoroughly solved) - there's over 50 squares available several times.
The fact that that 50 will sink into the forties and thirties as 32 pieces is hypothetically approached - doesn't prevent the trillions of trillions of years figures that will never be put in on this.

What is "so far" worth in this context?

As good as Morphy saying "chess is a win for white, so far.. until someone beats me." Anyway..

@10125

"poisson distribution doesn't apply"
++ I no longer need the Poisson distribution:
there are no (0) decisive games in the ongoing ICCF WC Finals. 106 draws out of 106 games.

On bd

@10154

"I find the concept that an equal number of mistakes by top masters using the best engines, thereby preserving the draw, is any justification for the conclusion that chess is inherently drawn " ++ Then propose a plausible error distribution consistent with the observed fact that all 106 ICCF WC Finals games produce 106 draws.
Games with 0 error: ...
Games with 1 error: ...
Games with 2 errors: ...
Games with 3 errors: ...
Games with 4 errors: ...

I say:
Games with 0 error: 106
Games with more errors: 0

I am willing to accept the possibility of 
Games with 0 error: 105
Games with 1 error: 0
Games with 2 errors: 1

But even then Chess is a draw and we have 105 perfect games that show how to draw.

"GM/engine "A" misses a move that could lead to a lasting advantage and GM/engine "B" also fails to see it doesn't mean that the game has been played correctly."
++ That would be the case of such a game with 2 errors. Then the initial position has the same game-theoretic value as the actual end result of that game.

I cannot exclude that in 1 or even 2 games out of the 106 games there is a pair of errors that undo each other. Even then the 106 draws prove Chess must be a draw, and we have over 100 perfect games that show how to draw.

that 'Poisson' kind of fishy anyway. Yes couldn't resist pun.
106 draws out of 106 ... among GM's using the same computers to assist them?
A computer is going to 'catch' its own mistake?
Just now - could not find recent instances of top supercomputers playing each other ...
but when doing google search got this:
"When the highest level of engines (say the top 10) play against each other, the most common result is a draw, but occasionally you see a win."
but here's the problem: kind of 'irksome'.
it was just an 'entry'.
There was no website mentioned and no link.

@10187

"i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get"
++ No the ICCF World Championship Finals with 2 ICCF (grand)masters and several engines and average 5 days per move is the strongest thing we can get. Much stronger than unjockeyed Stockfish and much stronger than 5 hours per move.

bro cant even admit he was completely objectively wrong, so he just says "i dont need it"

@10191

"chess is a draw with perfect play because the current strongest engine draws against itself"
No. Autoplay hold a risk of double error. The ICCF World Championship Finals has 17 different entities ICCF (grand)masters + engines. They draw 106 games out of 106 against each other.
That means Chess is a draw and we have 100+ perfect games that show how to draw.

"I am willing to accept the possibility of..."

thats not how proofs work.

there is no "accepting the possibility of"

you just have insufficient evidence.

@10193

"Stockfish doesn't play chess perfectly"
++ No, but the ICCF (grand)masters with their engines at 5 days/move average in the ICCF World Championship Finals have now reached perfection: 106 draws out of 106 games.

what a dumb guy, bro really thinks two different engines cant make the same error.

and plus, this entire argument ASSUMES chess is a draw.

@10200

"adding just one piece to the basic tablebases"
++ This thinking error keeps coming up.
A 32-men table base is strongly solving Chess, but is beyond present technology.
We are talking about weakly solving Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
It is unnecessary to strongly solve Chess to weakly solve it.
It is unnecessary to weakly solve Chess to ultra-weakly solve Chess: tell if the initial position is a draw/white win/black win.

@10205

"106 draws out of 106 ... among GM's using the same computers to assist them?"
++ They use more than one engine per game, and also with different tunings. They decide themselves what lines they additionally submit to calculation.

"A computer is going to 'catch' its own mistake?" ++ Several computers jockeyed by a human catch a mistake by several computers jockeyed by another human. In previous years that was what happened: mostly draws, but some decisive games. This year no decisive games at all. No errors at all.

"top supercomputers playing each other" ++ at 5 days/move? Not 5 hours, 5 minutes, or 5 seconds per move.

"When the highest level of engines (say the top 10) play against each other, the most common result is a draw, but occasionally you see a win."
++ At what time per move? With free openings or with imposed openings like TCEC? TCEC has 50 slightly unbalanced openings imposed, that they play as white and as black.