Chess will never be solved, here's why

chipi chipi chapa chapa dubi dubi daba daba

There's lots of threads that might interest you. Nice bunch of kids at

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/will-you-date-the-person-above-you-2

Twinkle joined chess.com an hour ago.
Two features chess.com needs.
One is venue-blocking. So when you block somebody they're blocked in a specific forum or club or from challenging to a game or from PMing as the blocking person chooses. While retaining the option to globally block too.
Why hasn't chess.com developed that option? Apparently the management believes that people block mainly because whoever doesn't like whoever and so blocking may as well be global. But this is short-sighted because there are many alternative reasons to block. Good reasons.
-------------------------------
The other feature is to give opening posters an option when setting up their public forum - to set a minimum of how long an account has been with chess.com to post in the opening posters public forum.
And also an option to adjust that limit later on too.
-------------------------------
Each of those features would improve chess.com considerably.
The anti-block lobby on the website would hate the first feature because people would use their blocking options more and that lobby would lose power.
But that clique should lose power. They're too harassing of people using their blocking option as it is. And that clique leader of such harassment is deceptive and dishonest. He operates mainly in the clubs though.

YEP! you are completely correct. i was attempting to show tygxc why his claims of such a proof existing are absurdly wrong.

ur trying logic, and that doesnt work with tygxc.

his claim of the 5 year solution is a result of him double counting a factor of 100 million.

@MEGACHE3SEYes - tyg likes to use illogic to push his points and assert himself.
But that's allowed.
Yes I am expressing logic - the fact that tyg rejects logic doesn't mean that logic 'doesn't work'.
Logic is often unpopular. That's known too.
And illogic is exploited heavily in movies and books.
Its more Dramatic.

@9301

"supercomputers struggle even against just nine pieces on the board
- to solve all possible positions with such. Or was it eight?"
++ That is strongly solving chess for all 8-men positions,
generating an 8-men endgame table base.
We talk here about weakly solving Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.

@9302

"I suspect it doesn't lose."
++ Feel free to suggest any white improvement in any of the 3 lines of 1 g4? I presented.
That is how chess analysis works. Black wins in the lines.
So black loses until an improvement for white is found.
That is also how science works: a theory stands until an experiment contradicts it.

@9301

"You have also claimed that all of chess could be solved in five years."
++ Credit where credit is due.
GM Sveshnikov claimed he could weakly solve Chess if given 5 years,
good assistants, and modern computers.
We are now almost there: in the ICCF World Championship Finals the 17 ICCF (grand)masters with their computers at 5 days/move average played 104 draws in 104 games.

'Strongly' solving 8 man positions?
But isn't that with castling excluded?
Plus its not really 'strongly' ...
even adding just one more piece - and the supercomputers struggle.
tyg is essentially contradicting himself.
He is admitting that chess isn't solved.
After 1) g4 there's 32 pieces still on the board.
If its not solving for 9 pieces its not solving for 32 either.
And 9 pieces is uneven material - indicating the supercomputers can't even solve with that in place.
What motivates tyg ...?
Its like an ego thing. He wants to defend a hopeless position ... like a master might offer rooks odds to a 1400 in a money game.
Or play a simul against a bunch of 1400's at rook odds.
----------------------------------
I once saw Carlsen play three good players simultaneously ...
With a clock.
With Carlsen having no board to see.
He checkmated one.
Another ran out of time.
The other resigned in a hopeless position.
It was genius in action.
Carlsen can do things like that.
tyg can't.

tygxc switched from rapid to blitz lol I like how I have a feeling it was to keep his 2100 rapid rating I would like to explain rygxc to explain why even though he's a component for only rapid games ?

tyg has said something that impressed me though.
When playing - always assume there's tactics in a position until you're sure there's none. (if that's the case. obviously)
That's a very good idea! Well put.
With one extra feature ... in time scrambles sometimes you don't have time to 'make sure there's none'

Could probably be improved too.
Always assume there's more tactics in a position than you've found - until you're sure there isn't any more - for then.

@9327

"Strongly' solving 8 man positions" ++ The 7-men endgame table base strongly solves chess for all positions with 7 men or less. On 8 men work is in progress.

"But isn't that with castling excluded?"
++ Irrelevant. Once 7 men are reached castling rights are forfeited.

"Plus its not really 'strongly'" ++ It is. Strongly means all positions.
Weakly means only one line for one side and all reasonable lines for the other side.
Half a forest instead of the whole forest. The square root of the number of positions.

"He is admitting that chess isn't solved." ++ For all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved and the game theoretical value of the initial position is a draw.

Chess is now almost weakly solved. We have 104 perfect games with optimal play from both sides in the ICCF World Championship Finals, all draws. A strategy for black to draw is to follow an ICCF WC Finals draw for as long as possible and then use a computer and an ICCF (grand)master at 5 days per move until a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached.

Strongly solving Chess, i.e. a 32 men table base is beyond reach of present technology.

@9292

"NF3 NF6 is the consistent black strategy to win. steal it."

1. You have to go further than that. Say 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4, how goes your strategy then?
2. Remind 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8 leads to a draw by 3-fold repetition.
3. A consistent black strategy is not only after 1 Nf3, also 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4.
4. White can always shed a tempo by moving a pawn 1 square and then another square. Black can too, but that would lead to an absurd tempo war where pawns are only moved 1 square, bishops and queens are moved back and forth along a diagonal, knights step back...

There exists no consistent strategy for black to win from the initial position, as white can steal it.

I saw I got to 2100 and struggled to break 1800 blitz too the only difference ws I was doing rapid +blitz at the same time so I broke the barrier in about 1-2(maybe 5?) months

"You have to go further than that. Say 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4, how goes your strategy then?"

just as well as before!!

it's YOUR strategy stealing. YOU have to prove that its a draw. do you understand the basic concept of proof?

"Remind 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8 leads to a draw by 3-fold repetition."
wow, yet another assumption of blacks moves by you.

"White can always shed a tempo by moving a pawn 1 square and then another square. Black can too, but that would lead to an absurd tempo war where pawns are only moved 1 square, bishops and queens are moved back and forth along a diagonal, knights step back..."

black doesnt have to do any of what you said. you claim any possibly winning position can be strategy stolen, and since none of those positions has been weakly solved, they could all be winning positions for black. black doesnt have to make any of those moves, but they CAN. this is basic logic. you are literally just admitting that your strategy stealing argument is flawed.

so you literally contradict yourself lmfao.

I dunno playing two time controls at the same time was pretty helpful but rn I only play rapid against people I typically challenge myself I stopped playing against random opponents it's more fun if your opponent actually talks I also like doing rapid odds cause it tends to be a lot of 1800-2000s it helps me focus down a peice