Chess will never be solved, here's why

no its that tygxc as usual is completely misunderstanding and deliberately misconstruing what the article says lol.

im still baffled at how you can justify this to yourself.
they reach a draw, so their play was perfect!?!?!?
by that logic, all my games that were draws had no errors on black's end.

absolute buffoonery.

im noticing how you cant address my other points tygxc. probably because they arent convenient to your.... idk your fantasy? thats all that i can think of to describe your position on chess's solvability. a fantasy. or an elaborate troll

not a single article you cite is taken in the correct context

egs: a gm claiming that computers will bridge the gap between mid game and end game theory -> you claiming hes talking about solving chess completely?!?!?! random chess computer databases of high level computer play. --> perfect chess play!??! (your logic is literally "according to this game engine, this SAME game engine made the best move")

not a single calculation you make is without basic errors
egs: your calculation of move speed accuracy is off by a factor of 100 million, because you double counted nodes as moves. read the article you cited, its one move per minute at a supposed 90+% accuracy, with 100 million nodes, not 100 million nodes each making one move per minute each at 90%+ accuracy.

Not a single mathematical concept is used correctly.
egs: you claiming that chess errors follows poisson distribution despite it only following one of the four properties needed, you claiming differences between ultra weak and weakly solved despite your "proofs" failing to actually take those differences into consideration. your complete lack of understanding how parity and zugzwang make strategy stealing impossible.

Chess be solved before 2040. 32.men EGTB isn't needed. 20 men EGTB and Expanding Opening Theory will meet in the middle. Some opening position is a clear win for one side.

Ofc with best play by both colors will end in.a draw.

wheres the strategy steal for Nf3.

@9211

"chess is a draw with perfect play" ++ Yes. If chess were not a draw, then all 104 finished ICCF WC finals games would contain only an odd number of errors (?): 1, 3, 5, 7... and none an even number of errors (?): 0, 2, 4, 6.... That is absurd. Thus Chess is a draw.

"this is perfect play because it ended with a draw"
++ No, this is perfect play because all 104 finished games between 17 strong entities ICCF (grand)master + engine at 5 days average per move ended in draws with not even one single decisive game. It is absurd that there would only be games with an even number of errors (?): 0, 2, 4, 6... and none with an odd number of errors (?): 1, 3, 5... Thus these must be games with 0 error (?), hence perfect play.

""chess is a draw with perfect play" ++ Yes. If chess were not a draw, then all 104 finished ICCF WC finals games would contain only an odd number of errors (?): 1, 3, 5, 7... and none an even number of errors (?): 0, 2, 4, 6.... That is absurd. Thus Chess is a draw."

your argument is literally "oh its absurd for there to be an odd number of errors"

thats an appeal to stone fallacy.

"++ No, this is perfect play because all 104 finished games between 17 strong entities ICCF (grand)master + engine at 5 days average per move ended in draws with not even one single decisive game"

thats literally exactly the same logic. they were draws, you claim the engines are perfect because they ended with draws.

there's nothing special about the engines.

saying that its absurd doesnt make it false lmfao.

yeah, a troller wouldnt make such a stupid line of logic. they would actually put THOUGHT into their claims.

The problem is that you need some method to determine if there were errors made for your method to have any validity. We know that GMs opinions of what is "best" evolves overtime, and we know that engines constantly improve, today's engines outperform yesterday's. Yet these are the flawed "authorities" you use to decide which lines are irrelevant.

its funny, im trying to think of a fallacy that you havent made, tygxc. (excluding wierd informal ones).

yep, but according to tygxc, because those engines resulted in draws, its a proof!

@9218

"The problem is that you need some method to determine if there were errors made"
++ If Chess were not a draw, then the 100% ICCF WC Finals' draws must contain an odd number of errors (?): 1, 3, 5... and none would contain an even number of errors (?): 0, 2, 4, 6...
That is absurd. Thus Chess must be a draw with an even number of errors (?) 0, 2, 4...

Likewise it is absurd, that the 100% drawn ICCF WC Finals' games would contain even numbers of errors (?): 0, 2, 4, 6, and none would contain an odd number of errors: 1, 3, 5, 7...
That is absurd.
Thus the 104 ICCF WC Finals draws must contain 0 error: optimal play.

"we know that engines constantly improve" ++ Yes, they make fewer and fewer errors over time.

"today's engines outperform yesterday's" ++ Yes, they make fewer errors.

"these are the flawed authorities you use to decide which lines are irrelevant."
++ No, the authority is the 7-men endgame table base. When a game ends in a 7 men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition, that justifies all black moves in retrospect as fit to draw. It does not justify all white moves as unfit to win, but 104 attempts by 17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines at 5 days / move failed to win even a single game.
The above logical argument about the number of errors (?) proves that Chess is a draw and that all 104 games are perfect with optimal play by both sides.

chess can and will be solved, just needs more computing power and storage

What if they aren't on meds?

Again, your lack of competence at dealing with uncertainty, combined with apparent lack of knowledge of the meaning of the word proof - a mathematical term - is leading you astray.

Is it possible for a fair coin to come up heads a thousand times?

Does getting 1000 heads by tossing a coin PROVE it is unfair?

Answer these questions correctly and you will see why your statements were wrong. [Hint: it's YES and NO].

I'm afraid that although there are clear motives to disagree with some aspects of what tygxc is insisting on (and elsewhere on the forums I've found many of his comments to be good ones) it seems that your disagreement here is too violent.

It's possible that you're bing misled by your own expertise on statistics. My reasoning in brief is as follows.

Although the outcome of games of chess are uncertain, comparing a game of chess with a toss of a coin is not comparing analagous processes. The process of a coin toss is, more or less 100% chance. The process of a game of chess may contain chance elements, as discusssed (and disagreed upon) elsewhere. But you simply cannot carry a point by making a direct comparison of the outcome of chess games and the outcome of coin tosses. Any argument based on such an analogy is invalid.

Stats nerds that are wrong(bt kinda right ) vs chess nerds that are wrong(but kinda aright )

this feels like kramnik ....

When you're making an argument and you're only kinda right, you don't ruin it by making the argument incorrectly. I agree with tygxc on this.

My reason is that Elroch is depending on something that cannot be proven. He's claiming that we don't know that chess is a draw and I think we do know. So does ty. When one type of proof is impossible then we have to alter the way we think to cope with that, so we go with the basis of well-established experience.

There's zero evidence that chess even MIGHT be a forced win and also various inductive arguments as to why it's definitely drawn. You certainly can't defeat that by making an incorrect comparison between chess and tossing a coin.

Anyway, I only got involved because Elroch is calling ty incompetent and also accusing him of sloppy thinking in another post. If that (equating a chess game with a coin toss) isn't sloppy thinking, I wouldn't know what is. I suppose playerafar would agree with Elroch and claim I'm projecting and, of course, very very angry and foolish but all the same, you shouldn't make such daft arguments.

Not knowing the future outcomes of a game of chess or of 1000 games of chess is very different from any argument that good play by both sides leads (or even doesn't lead) to a draw.

I just set an opponent a neat little trap in a 5 minute game. My original idea was the knight move forking the Q and B and then I saw that if he were to take the pawn, he would lose to Nf6+.

I think tygxc would be a good opponent for kramnik he doesn't provide any proof so kramnik wouldn't be able to "disprove" what he is saying

@9225

"The problem is doing the calculation to get to table base positions."
++ It does not matter how the move sequences from the initial position to the 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition were generated: with with 1 or more computers,
by praying to Caissa, by dark magic to summon the spirit of Capablanca...
If a sequence ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition,
then that justifies all black moves as fit to draw, but not all white moves as unfit to win.

"The table bases only offer a modest reduction in the size of the problem." ++ Yes. But modern computers plus human ICCF (grand)masters can now bridge the gap between the initial position and the 7-men endgame table base, exactly as GM Sveshnikov predicted.

"there have been decisive games between top players in recent years."
human (grand)master + engine > engine > human grandmaster
In the 2024 Toronto Candidates' tournament there were average 1.1 errors per game.
In the ICCF World Championship finals there have been decisive games: every year fewer and now none. They now have reached perfection. If some alien intelligence would have access to a 32-men table base, then it could not win a single 5 day/move correspondence game against an ICCF grandmaster with engine as now competing in the ICCF World Championship Finals.

"if two agents play a game with the the same rules twice and don't get the same result"
++ 17 agents (ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days / move) played 104 games with the same rules and got 104 draws. Not a single decisive game.