Chess will never be solved, here's why

tygxc perhaps bases his arguments on his chess training.

Turing. Alan Turing. Again.
Broke the german code in World War II apparently.
But died young from cyanide poisoning at age 41.
It was apparently never determined whether it was suicide or murder or other.
Reminds me of the death of Alekhine.
"Turing has an extensive legacy with statues and many things named after him, including an annual award for computer science innovations. He appears on the current Bank of England £50 note, which was released on 23 June 2021 to coincide with his birthday. A 2019 BBC series, as voted by the audience, named him the greatest person of the 20th century."

I don't know the ones who have been forgotten, but Goedel, von Neumann and co. are well remembered.

Long quash is unmuted

u can setup a 4x8 board. no castling (no en passant ? / no promo ?). ea side gets 4 pawns, a king a knight a bishop & a rook (bishop & rook makes up a kmart queen). tweak a antminer or two & see what u get. once u get from 16 to 7 u can bridge to a 4x8 syzygy base (which would probably solve better than 7 on a half-board...and i bleeve its been done will check).

I feel this could be a good starting point 4da attemptor yes ?

hi opti !!...happy ur back luv L♥

(all need to be resolved).

nah worry about that later. u can build in a parsa a all sorts a dum moves. openly dropping a piece w/out compensation just makes a joke outta stuff. i say prune baby prune !

""that take a significant amount of computing time" ++ Average 5 days / move."

your calculation listed it at over a million positions per second, so you are contradicting yourself.

@12261

"we can know things due to inductive reasoning" ++ All we know is by inductive reasoning

"That would imply an ideal system which may not relate to reality" ++ Like Cantor

"tygxc is to some extent both irritating and slow" ++ Huh. Do I insult people?
I might be the fastest responder on this thread. I respond to trolls more often than I should.

"well-based challenges" ++ What well-based challenges?

"he isn't actually responding to anything?" ++ To that which makes sense.
I decide for myself what posts and what parts of them I respond to. I have no obligation.

"why they do not focus on different types of game, such as 200 move games"
++ The games end in draws in average 39 moves. What would you want them to do?

"the formula which seems to lead to draws all the time" ++ Chess is a draw, the formula cannot change that. There have been proposals to shorten the thinking time now 5 days/move.

Pruning 1) a4 for any reason is ridiculous.
Because 1) a4 is just as unsolved as 1) e4 is.
tygxc wants to go by human chessplaying doctrine - he constantly dismisses mathematical rigor and objective reasoning.
1) a4 doesn't lose so you can't prune it.
That goes for 1) f3 and 1) Nh3 too.
--------------------------------------------
if tygxc wants projects whereby Stockfish and other engines 'prune' when one side is getting a big numerical advantage according to the engine's one-dimensional numerical evaluation numbers ... then he could talk about such projects.
Such a project where the pruning occurs with advantage of 0.2 would be ridiculous.
Even an advantage of 1.0 is ridiculous even if that was equivalent to one pawn up - since positions with one pawn up are often draws or even winning for the side that's a pawn down.
If the advantage was +5 or +10 and those are 'pruned' that might be some kind of approximation but that isn't going to happen often enough to make a big enough dent in the task to be done.
Maybe a 'nitty gritty' range of computer-evaluated advantage has been determined whereby there's enough advantage to make a try at pruning but it also happens often enough to take a huge chunk out of the overall solving task.
Or maybe there's no such thing. There's a big Gap in other words.
Betwen often enough and big enough.

@12269

"Because 1) a4 is just as unsolved as 1) e4 is." ++ We have now 39 perfect games opening 1 e4 with optimal play from both sides, all draws. We have zero with 1 a4 and for good reason so.

"tygxc wants to go by human chessplaying doctrine - he constantly dismisses mathematical rigor and objective reasoning." ++ I want to incorporate chess knowledge into weakly solving chess, as is beneficial according to this scientific paper.

Insisting on a proof tree for 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 a4 is not rigor, it is stupid.
I am the one that reasons objectively, without disproving by insulting, ridiculising, condescending.

"1) a4 doesn't lose" ++ Correct

"so you can't prune it." ++ Wrong. It cannot be better than 1 e4. Thus we can neglect it.
If black can draw against the better move, then it is trivial to draw against 1 a4.

"That goes for 1) f3 and 1) Nh3 too." ++ Yes, those are trivial too. They draw just the same, but they do not oppose, i.e. strive against the draw. They cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 Nf3.

"if tygxc wants projects"
++ There is no need for a project with good assistants and modern computers: the 17 ICCF WC finalists and their 2 servers each of 90 million positions per second do it for free.

"advantage of 0.2" ++ Again: computer evaluations like +0.20 make no sense.
The only objective, absolute evaluation is win / draw / loss.

"Maybe a 'nitty gritty' range of computer-evaluated advantage has been determined"
++ Present consensus: +1.00 gives a 50% chance to win and a 50% chance to draw or lose.
However, the provisional, heuristic evaluations like +1.00 play no role.

We now have 110 ICCF WC Finals games, all starting from the initial position and all ending in a certain draw after average 39 moves, and these represent evaluation of 10^17 positions.
The games show that whatever white tries, black has not the required 1 sequence of moves to draw, but 4-5 different sequences of moves to draw. So it is redundant.
Even if a double error were found in one or a few of the 110 games, then the result still stands: chess is a draw and we know sequences of moves to achieve the draw.

You explain very well that you are entirely ignorant of what a proof is, and that if your non-proof had multiple errors in it you would still be 100% convinced by it. Thank you for being so open about your lack of understanding.

@tygxc always ignores refutations of his reasoning.

Let me illustrate.

For N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ...} define the sequence of questions Q(N) like this:

Q(N) = "If N games were played between two world class centaurs (engine assisted human) using current engines and it was a draw, would that be a proof that chess is a draw?"

@tygxc has stated that he believes the answer to Q(106) and Q(110) is "Yes".

@tygxc, which is the least N such that the answer to Q(N) is "Yes"?

There have been many attempts to dissect what tygxc does.
But its beginning to look like tygxc just wants to apply what he's learned as a chess player.
Or been conditioned to build his chess playing on.
There's probably various analogies to describe it.

Yes, he reasons like a chess player picking moves - trying to convince himself of what is right - then claims that he has proved that he has the right move.

I disagree about the arrogance - he has ignored all input by people who understand what he doesn't.

And to be fair - tygxc is far less arrogant and conceited than the person who just got muted twice by chess.com.
That's if tygxc is arrogant and conceited at all.

That could be regarded to be tunnel vision and obstinacy as opposed to arrogance.
Unlike that other person - tygxc never tries to say or pretend he is 'superior' or better than anybody.
@Elroch - this is meant as a little joke:
Can you see tygxc someday saying?
'Oh I get it now. The square root argument is invalid - 'nodes per second' is ridiculous - 106 draws was contrived in a special context - and simply concluding and pruning out opening moves that don't lose is shallow and invalid too.'
We wouldn't believe him.
Right?

I've made it simpler for him. If he is honest, he can answer the very precise question in my (edited) post above.

pls answer