Chess will never be solved, here's why

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

@12279

"how long can a chess game go until someone gets an advantage and how long can the opponent prolong not getting checkmated?"
++ The ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals now has 110 draws out of 110 games and they end in draws in average 39 moves. https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104

"How many calculations would it need for that to be "solved"?" 
++ Weakly solving chess needs to consider 10^17 positions = Sqrt (10^37*10 / 10,000).
The 17 ICCF World Championship finalists looked at 1.9*10^17 positions = 90*10^6 positions/s/server * 2 servers/finalist * 17 finalists * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 2 a

"chess games do have a max possible move count with the 50 move rule" 
++ The 50-moves rule plays no role at all. 
Games end in draws in average 39 moves, long before the 50-moves rule can trigger.

@12277

'Oh I get it now. In 1000 years computers will find that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 580 moves for white and 1 d4 g5 is a forced checkmate for black in 398 moves.'
Then you would have reason not to believe me.

get the sw running first. then do a doughboy (smooshy) solve. then straighten the kinx as one goes. let go a the book theory...for now. cant jump from abc to xyz. needta make some words outta the middle 20 letters. well completely describe it later. and elroch ?...quit tryn sooo hard. let stuff come to u.

Games end in draws in average 39 moves, long before the 50-moves rule can trigger.

wha-what ?? 50move rule (2-ply) is when no piece captured AND no pawn moved right ? now what does that hafta do w/ a 39move game again ?

btw...using the 50move (100ply) rule what it the longest possible game ? they say its 5898.5 moves.

brute force method

BFM is abt to become yesterday.

That's what engines used to think about the Greek gift sacrifice, until their horizons improved considerably.

And that's the whole point...humans and engines are not good enough to determine what moves have no compensation. Tygxc freely admits this when he says that engine evaluations don't matter, only reaching the tablebase...

The problem is, if you are using evaluations that are not correct enough to matter, then the engine(s) is/are pruning imperfectly, and reaching the tablebase that way is meaningless and proves nothing.

This is pretty obvious and not hard to understand. Tygxc proposes to make a decent guess by today's standard of play and then just call it a scientific proof. That's like toasting a pop tart and calling it a pizza. It's square and tastes nothing like pizza, but you can slice it up and try to give it to people anyway...

" I want to incorporate chess knowledge into weakly solving chess, as is beneficial according to this "

but you arent, you are using general chess knowledge to justify objectively incorrect reasoning.

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

then why do you use those artificial evaluations to justify that e4 is better than a4?

""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."

not 90 million positions per second, 5 days per move. you keep interchanging nodes and full positional evaluations. even assuming perfect pruning (which is the opposite from the truth) a weak solve requires a full positional evaluation of each of the 10&17 +

"Weakly solving chess needs to consider 10^17 positions"

false statement. this assumes that no moves besides perfect moves on one side are considered, but in order to find the perfect move, you have to consider non perfect moves.

why arent you addressing this fact?

idc about arrogance, but tygxc is definitely more intellectually dishonest than anyone else here.

(all need to be resolved)

didju write this Dodo Due ??...so then ur elroch right ?

That's not ny username, nor is Elroch as it turns out...

This reveals how confused @tygxc really is. A perfect analogy is the following:

A: here is a lottery ticket. Is there a chance of it winning?

T: no, there is no chance of it winning.

A: are you sure? When you calculate it, there is a very small probability of it winning, but not zero

T: no it's zero. I am absolutely certain it won't win. (Jeering) I suppose you are going to come back next week and say it's won.

The point is that there is a big difference between something that is known to be true and something that is strongly believed. This includes something that is very likely. The difference is in the JUSTIFIABLE STATE OF BELIEF. A truth is something with a probability of 1. Nothing else is known for certain (delusions of doing so are not the same!)

@tygxc, do you understand the question in my earlier post? Otherwise not answering it is plain intellectual dishonesty. If you don't understand it, we can just add that to the list. But I think you should be able to have a go. Click on the link.

chess

e=mc^2

chmccss

c^3 * h * m * s^2

where m is mass in kilograms, h is height in meters, c is the speed of light, in m/s and s is the time in seconds.

Let us assume the American Staunton Series Chess Set.

m = 3.25 lb = 1474.175 g = 1.474175 kg

h = 3.75 in = 9.525 cm = 0.09525 m

s = 4 hours = 14400 s

c = 299,792,458 m/s

(299,792,458 m/s)^3 * 1.474175 kg * 0.09525 m * 14400 s

26,944,002,417,373,989,539,335,912 m^3 * 1.474175 kg * 0.09525 m * 14400 s / s^3

A bit of simplification...

26,944,002,417,373,989,539,335,912 m^3 * 1.474175 kg * 0.09525 m * 14400 / s^2

2,566,416,230,254,872,503,621,745.618 m^4 * 1.474175 kg * 14400 / s^2

Final answer

54,480,191,705,798,064,091,582,850,588.37816 m⁴ kg s⁻²

(54 octillion)

I solved chess

Upvoting/down voting systems are actually very good tools for identifying trolls, crackpots, etc. I'll use myself as an example...in terms of overall downvotes, Optimissed > DiogenesDue > Elroch. This stands to reason...I confront trolls and crackpots head on all the time, Elroch does so quite sparingly. I don't engage in namecalling and remain civil even while engaging with people who are, ergo I have less downvotes in general than you. The measuring stick has correctly ordered the objectionable content...and over time it is quite accurate. An exception would be in threads where trolls and crackpots are purposefully congregating and reasonable posters are ghe minority, like the climate change hoax thread.

10^17 is Tygxc's number and nobody else's, so you could not have picked a worse example of arguing from authority...

You should just be very glad that chess.com does not display your overall total upvotes and downvotes on your profile like some sites do...