Chess will never be solved, here's why

1) e4 for white continues to be the most popular move for white on move 1 even though it appears to be less important than Nf3.
I've got this theory I've stated before that the reason 1) e4 is #1 in popularity is because its the one move that socks it to black regarding black's most important move Nf6 in front of his fpawn.
Black replying Nf6 (gets his N bumped right away) is only 8th in popularity as a reply. Alekhine's defense.
Theory: Black wants his knight stable at f6 so after 1) e4 black will fight for that possibility.
Tons and tons of opening theory about white making it his business to upset that black knight at f6 somehow.

I've played the Sicilian for decades and more and more I'm treating it like a delayed French. I think the Sicilian is easily the most flexible way to treat 1. e4. I've been playing a lot of Caro-Kann in my 5 min games and I see that as a bit of fun. It isn't at all solid, despite protestations to the contrary by weak players. The way I play the Sicilian, with e6, is ultra solid and very agressive too. Black targets white's central pawns, can expand on the Q side and switch to attack white's 0-0. Occasionally, if white messes about too much, I will play Be7 to f6 and then Ne7. In closed variations I almost always play Nc6 and in open variations after d4 by white I prefer ...Nd7 to keep it on the board.

@9269

"We do not have proofs that any model applies to the real world"
++ We do have such proof: models are applied to the real world all the time:
we build buildings, bridges, cars, airplanes, spaceships, computers... all by applying models.
Even the Pythagorean theorem was thought of to establish land boundaries after Nile flooding.
Thales's theorem was thought of to measure the height of the Great Pyramid.

@9270

"If a player who blunders once in 1000 games plays a 100 game match"
++ That is besides the question. When 17 qualified ICCF (grand)masters with engines at 5 days/move play 104 games in the ICCF World Championship Finals, all draws,
then that is enough to conclude all these 104 games are perfect games with no error.

It does not say they played perfectly last year (they did not, there were a few decisive games),
or that they will play perfectly next year (maybe one tries too hard to win and loses a game).

@9271

"1) g4 does not 'lose by force'."
++ It does. 1 g4? is the worst first white move and the only one that loses by force.

@9263

"the total number of possible chess games, that is almost certainly greater than 10^10000"
++ The numberr of possible chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082.
https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html

The number of legal positions is 4.82 * 10^44,
but as the 3 samples show, multiple underpromotions make no sense.
https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking

The number of legal positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured is 4 * 10^37 and the vast majority of those makes no sense either.
https://univ-avignon.hal.science/hal-03483904

Weakly solving needs only half a forest, hence the square root of the number of positions.
Thus 10^17 positions suffice to weakly solve Chess.

That's a claim made by some people. I know you showed a game where it lost but a game isn't a proof is it?

<<To repeat, we have deductive proofs about models. We do not have proofs that any model applies to the real world - they are always at the mercy of new empirical data, so those proofs do NOT apply to the real world. Rather we have confidence in a model being reliable, which is inductive knowledge. The distinction is crucial and important to have in mind.>>

I thought he'd lost his touch but Elroch is accurate here, if pedantic. When a real world situation is reduced to a model, that model is mathematically defined and therefore its properties are exactly known and accurate predictions can be made about its performance, by using syllogistic logic.

On the other hand, the model bridge might be missing a few stress factors, such as, off the top of my head, perhaps resonance to a railway line running over it or near it that causes a standing wave in the real thing which doesn't appear in the model, even though the model may have been actually made and tested. The bridge falls apart in 133 years and 3 months.

The Victorians tended to build bridges by working out what was needed and multiplying that by about four. Their bridges might last 1000 years.

@9282

"proofs do NOT apply to the real world"
++ Only the real world exists. Abstract concepts only exist within the human mind.
They stem from the real world and they are applied to the real world.

@9281

"you showed a game where it lost but a game isn't a proof is it?"
++ I showed 3 games, all ending in 7-men endgame table base wins.
Feel free to suggest any white improvement.

Deductive proofs (syllogistic proofs) don't apply to the real world because the models they're based on cannot be assumed to apply exactly to the real world. They are necessarily a simplification and an approximation.

The same applies to chess analysis which is too complex to be carried out in its entirety. We can have no deductive proof but even so, an inferential judgement can be made, which is not a proof but which may be amply accurate for the purpose it serves. That applies to building Victorian bridges and to chess analysis alike.

I probably should have made philosophy my career but this site is giving me good practice.

@9285

Models like the Schrödinger equation have been derived from experiments in the real world and are applied to the real world e.g. computers.
Some abstract concepts in the human mind have no link to the real world, e.g. transfinite numbers.

Yes but to be fair, Svesnikov's beliefs are not about the real world and exist only in his mind without the possibility of application to the real world.

I just applied my mind to the hypothesis of transfinite numbers. If, as you say, they have no link to the real world, that means they have no possible use. The hypothesis also has zero cohesion.

It's nonsense.

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cantor/

Ridiculously, this teaching aid credits cantor with the discovery of cardinal numbers. Does that mean he was alive in about 3000 BC? That's amazing. The proper Wiki article says he went mad but I doubt that was the case.

He was thought by many to be a charlatan and he was strongly opposed. He was certainly completely wrong but perhaps he was always "challenged" by his own mind??

you literally did claim it.
"There cannot exist a consistent black strategy to win, as white can steal it."

there's you claiming it again. unless you prove it individually, every possible position is a possible black win. this is logic that 10 year olds could understand.

"If 1 e4 c5 were a black win, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a white win."

false, black doesnt go e5, black goes e4.

you really are so blind that you think you can choose where black moves?

you have to prove that NO MATTER WHERE black moves you can steal the strategy.

your logic is the equivalent of claiming that chess is always a win for white because "e4 e5 Bc4 Bc5 Qh5 Nf6 Qxf7##" wins for white.

wow tygxc submitting a completely false proof as per usual.

NF3 NF6 is the consistent black strategy to win.

steal it.

"++ That is besides the question. When 17 qualified ICCF (grand)masters with engines at 5 days/move play 104 games in the ICCF World Championship Finals, all draws,
then that is enough to conclude all these 104 games are perfect games with no error"

thats not a proof lmfao

prove it.

tygxc being completely oblivious to the concept of proof as per usual

Why is this thread still going?? The first reply on this already answered it