Chess will never be solved, here's why

"As Schaeffer wrote: 'Even if an error has crept into the calculations, it likely
does not change the final result.'

sorry, math proofs dont work like that. thats an appeal to authority fallacy

reminder yet again that tygxc ignores the computing power necessary to choose which positions are to be evaluated as part of the weak solution. this fallacy that tygxc performs has been verified as a fatal error by dozens of math majors/math professors.

hey tygxc, why arent you addressing the fact that your "logic" gets laughed at by the dozen+ math majors and math professors that ive talked to?

it's both funny and very sad that tygxc knows he cant argue against me or anyone else who reads beyond the surface of what he says, so he continues to try to ensnare people new to the forum.

Depends what you mean. There are definitely a LOT fewer basics rules positions than the number of atoms in the universe. The number of possible games is the opposite, but all those games involve just legal sequences of positions in the 32-bit table base. The tablebase is a better indication of the size of the game, since it is an Oracle with respect to the optimal value function of the game (I.e. its objective). There are other arbitrary questions about chess that can be asked, but these are extraneous to the objective/value function.

is chess for smarter people?

No if it has a grey circle it just means he closed his account

Usually banned people have a red symbol

Mathematicians do sometimes make such comments about very difficult proofs but, as you say, this comment is not about what a proof is. It is about human fallibility and an uncertain beliefs about what is true if it has compromised the work! Schaeffer would definitely agree that IF an error was found, some of the analysis would need to be done for the conclusion to stand. He (and everyone else) would expect the same conclusion in the end.

It's a little different in the case of the solution of checkers, since it is more about the correctness of the code than the correctness of a proof designed for humans. I recall hearing that when the 4 color theorem was proved (it was actually achieved while I was at school), there was distrust from some graph theorists because it was not practical for a human to check the computer's working! Of course, what was really needed was for someone to check that the program was correct according to the mathematics - i.e. that it checked examples in a valid way and that it checked all the necessary examples. The execution of the program could be taken as reliable.

tygxc was referring to engine strength errors as being negligible, not coding errors.

Yes, his thinking was muddled. I'm not 100% sure he acknowledges yet that Schaeffer's work was rigorous (barring any unidentified errors, as always!)

he doesnt, because tygxc doesnt actually understand what "rigorous" even means in proof.

i feel like it could be solved 'just right' w/ some probability. kinda like goldilocks & her coffee. s/w btwn weak & strong. id be happy w/ that. todays world. in 10-20 yrs probably wont matter. stuffs abt to ▲ for the different. not necessarily 4da better or worse. not ez not clear. were abt to face this future w/ a stranded past. but then i luv the future more than the now. and my past is free for whoever asks.

& Lukey ?...cookie wants to meet u. i told her he couldnt handle u. she wuznt big on that but she knows it true. so take a flea bath & sneak on banana boat one. u can sleep during the day lol !

Steps that don't work in bold. Steps that are ridiculous in red. Note that the final comparing of apples to oranges is a capitulation by Tygxc. He knows he can't ever get to his solution, so he swaps in a lookalike number, much like a bad con man. For 500+ pages he never once mentioned this possibility, then suddenly decides to just call chess solved as-is via false equivocation. It's a move of desperation.

"Hey, why not just call this 1/2lb pile of ground beef a herd of cows...? Problem solved."

You missed:

"Thus Chess is a draw and there have been found not 1 but 4-5 ways to draw."

"So the results are redundant."

u have 5 ?...i have 10. and i soak them every day dn off the harborwalk. like 15 mins. im very proud of my digits. probably a bit ocd but owell.

Ways a chess game might be drawn.
1) by agreement
2) by stalemate
3) by insufficient mating material for both sides - like just two Kings on the board for example.
4) by three times repetition of a position - with perpetual check a branch of that perchance
5) by the 50 move rule
6) by 'book draw' including by adjudication.
For example King and rook versus King and rook.
Or King and edge-pawn versus a lone King that is on the edge-file in front of that edge pawn.
There's others.
7) by clock flag falling - with the side who didn't run out of time not having enough mating material.
-----------------
so there's seven so far.

A good question...for the evolution thread.

I was sticking strictly to the faulty reasoning steps of chopping 10^44 unique positions to 10^17, then trying to equate the ICCF number with that...but yes.

I just posted seven very distinct ways to draw.
A few posts ago.

No.
Nobody knows the size nor mass of the universe. Nobody ever will.
Plus it'll never be proved that the universe is finite - nor infinite.
So the answer ...
No.
------------------------------------
How a question is put ...
'observed universe' would be better to have in the question.
But even that ... 'the observed universe' constantly grows (no not expands - grows - expansion is another subject) (and an infinitely large object - how could it 'expand'? Lol.)
'observed universe' grows for two reasons.
Note the word 'observed' is critical there.
First - astronomy improves.
But even with astronomy not improving - new galaxies are constantly being discovered and would and will be discovered anyway. But astronomy is also improving - to discover even more and faster too.
So 'observed universe' is not Static in size or mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
But that doesn't mean there's some kind of limit out there.
(plus many want the Big Bang to be the only Big Bang - but an infinite number of cosmic eggs in an infinite universe - blowing up to produce an infinite number of big bangs in past and present and future - elsewhere .... destroys 'universal entropy' and 'the big bang is the universe' Just Like That. One sharp stone kills two very big birds.)

There is a printed proof available - I haven't read it. It's rather long but probably not impossible. I think about the same as a fourth volume added to Whiehead & Russell's PM in size and I suspect in not dissimilar style.

"The execution of the program could be taken as reliable."

Really?