Chess will never be solved, here's why

Just because you can "solve " chess doesn't mean you do it correctly

And most of the time the higher the elo you are the better you are than your opponent but not always (proof)

Like go play against stockfish maybe you'll beat it after 900+ games

@11663

"if a computer checking x number of moves fail to find a win,
how can you know a computer checking x +1 moves would also fail to find a win"
++ Because of redundancy. In the 108 draws out of 108 games of the ongoing ICCF World Championship several ways to draw were found:
108 sequences of legal moves starting from the initial position and ending in draws.

Elroch is trolling with his suggestion that the first moves of all 108 games are wrong and that 1 a4 wins for white. Demanding game trees for 1 a4 or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is not rigor, it is stupid.

Now let us assume some white win would exist after 1 e4.
We have 2 games with 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 that draw.
3 e5 could be a white win (1), so these 2 games would contain 2 errors.
We have 15 games with 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3/Nc3 that draw.
2 c3 could be a white win (2), so these 15 games would contain 2 errors.
We have 6 games with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5/d4 that draw.
3 Nc3 could be a white win (3), so these 6 games would contain 2 errors.
We have 15 games with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5/Bc4 that draw.
3 Nc3 could be a white win (4), so these 15 games would contain 2 errors.

So this would not mean 1 win, but 4 wins to be found and 2 + 15 + 6 + 15 = 38 games to contain 2 errors and all 17 finalists to be wrong.
That would lead to an error distribution of 70 - 0 - 38 - 0 instead of 108 - 0 - 0 - 0

It is not plausible to have 70 games with 0 error and 38 games with 2 errors and 0 with 1 error.
That would require all errors to come in pairs and none unpaired.
There are some arguments for some errors to come in pairs, but not all errors.

yep. its not worth responding to either big O.

"Elroch is trolling with his suggestion that the first moves of all 108 games are wrong and that 1 a4 wins for white. Demanding game trees for 1 a4 or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is not rigor, it is stupid"

not trolling at all, you just have no idea what demanding mathematical rigor is.

"it is stupid" isnt an argument, sorry. It is rigor literally by definition. if you had taken a mathematical proof class you would have known this.

why do you continue to ignore the many objective lies of yours that I (and others) point out?

"""if a computer checking x number of moves fail to find a win,
how can you know a computer checking x +1 moves would also fail to find a win"
++ Because of redundancy. In the 108 draws out of 108 games of the ongoing ICCF World""

thats not an argument LMFAO

your entire "logic" is the claim that the computer is just REALLLY strong

So if I draw with my friend 108 times in a row, no computer can beat us?

by your logic yes.

you will deny that that is your logic, but thats because you arent actually operating on a logical plane so you dont actually pay attention to the claims you make and their ramifications.

@tygxc needs to tell the authors of Stockfish to stop it from wasting time analysing variations after 2. Ba6. At present it shows that it is a weaker player than him by keeping analysing deeper and never reaching an evaluation that indicates certainty about the result.

My conclusion about unassisted @tygxc's chess strength can be verified by a 149 game match against Stockfish where I predict a victory by 1 point due to his superior ability to fail to analyse variations.

Yes. Given that the analysis has not been stored, that provides a set of candidate moves for a few thousand nodes from around 10^30 needed. Admittedly that means it is not so much part of a solution as a little help to find a solution (like the chosen moves of the Chinook engine provided candidates to help find a solution of checkers).

Before any attempt to disagree, you first need to confirm that you have learnt what a rigorous mathematical proof is, and how the proof that checkers is a draw qualifies as one according to the strict requirements for rigor, presuming no errors exist in its coding.

this forum is crazy...

It contains craziness.

Craziness in a forum that contains crazy people is not considered crazy as crazy people commonly use crazy vocabulary which allows them to think that it isn`t crazy.

hi

LMFAO LOL.

I had suspected that you were pissy about me ignoring you, but this confirms it. I'm going to go back to ignoring you with impunity now .

I actually read many of your posts, but theres literally zero substance for me to consider them worth responding. This one I chose to, not because of any substance, but because i found it so funny how easily you revealed the cards in your hand.

does a/o here know exactly how stockfish, AZ, leela, etc. comes to choose its move ? and also any comments on how NN'ing/AI & adv memory & stronger processors will change things.

also do ppl feel that a unbeatable engine solves chess ?...or does it need to win every game ? iows plz define 'solved'. and is this def agreed upon. thx...i hope.

btw they say stockfish blundered a known 7-table draw. lost to leela. s/t i find really wierd.

Im going to respond to this first because there are multiple people here who will spread misinformation. (optimissed, tygxc)

...he said, posting no content.

Maybe you could edify us all about how opening theory and endgame tablebases are "crystalized structures"...you know, try to turn that into some kind of real content instead of vague made-up fluff you tossed out when challenged about your false claims.

There is actually no such thing as winning an argument. It's not a game like chess, there is no independent objective arbiter.

What @Optimissed means when he praises his own arguing skills (I noticed he did not qualify this with any reference to being right) is that he can in all circumstances convince himself of his superiority over everyone else in every way that matters to him. I am not sure what he thinks about convincing other people, but he often makes bold proclamations about what other people think that are a very long way from reality.

Some people you can never convince in an argument. They are utterly invulnerable. Eg flat earthers. But essentially anyone whose ideas are not subject to any valid testing.

Others, you can never even get to understand what the argument is about.

Fact: Stockfish has never won the World Computer Chess Championship.

Komodo has won it most recent years, but in last year's competition Stoofvlees beat it.

A bit deceptive, since TCEC is generally regarded as the "real" WCCC, and Stockfish has done well in it. The last four finals have seen it against LCZero. It only won by 52:48 in seasons 24 and 25, but managed 57:43 in season 26. Leela picked up 17 wins though.

This is like someone posting "your stupid"...if you are trying to call someone/something dumb, but you misspell your own insult, well...

Yes everyone here lives

We all know you have a life thank you for your helpful input lol

1. You misspelled 'At least'.

2. I think that everyone reading these forums has a life.

3. Get better at chess before calling someone stupid, and I actually agree with Elroch, and if you do not, that does not mean that you can call him stupid.

4. Bye.