Chess will never be solved, here's why

I would imagine that even if computers make a way to play with 100% accuracy, then the worst case scenario would be that Chess is replaced by Chess960, seeing as for computers to solve that, they would effectively need to solve Chess Nine hundred and sixty times. The best case scenario is that computer vs. computer Chess is nullified, but human Chess is still playable. Currently, even the 3200 bot (which I know isn't the best in the world) can still get hung up in certain positions.

Chess is not infinite

For practical purposes it can be regarded as that.

Why is it practical to regard something as something it is not?

Computers will never be perfect. They will make a mistake eventually even if they can supposedly play perfectly. Furthermore, chess is a human game. Humans do not posses a data bank that can hold the information necessary to always play chess perfectly. Nothing in this world is perfect and nothing ever will be.

If a chess bot knew every possible continuation of a game of chess, wouldn't it be able to play perfectly? I suppose it both would and wouldn't. The reason I say that, is it would make the best move every time, but that might not have the best results--If you play as black against the 3200 bot, and set up a fool's mate, it likely wouldn't be able to mate because it didn't think that you would actually make such a bad move, so it blocked its queen with, say a knight, because that was the 'best move'

The actual explanation for your 104 draws is that engine play has tightened up considerably post-machine-learning, and human GMs can no longer find "suggestions" to good lines for engines anymore. Engine evaluations with a hidden disaster on the horizon are disappearing over time. But both engines and human GMs are *far* from reaching perfect play...what engines have reached, however, is a plateau where human GMs can no longer do anything but follow along with great difficulty. You equate this with perfect play, but it's just the threshold where human beings leave the equation in terms of determining what perfect play looks like.

Human beings have played some paltry trillions of games of chess (and certainly not multiple trillions of unique games). Engines are already set to surpass this if they have not already, yet still will have only played about 1 position out of every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 unique positions (i.e. 10^13 vs. 10^43).

100% Accuracy is not that at all. The current measure for "Accuracy" is derived from human and engine play, which are both imperfect. Ergo, 100% accuracy by a faulty measurement/methodology means nothing in terms of solving chess.

This helps your delusion of being a misunderstood genius, and yes, it seems to be all you can do. It's an exhausting way of propping up one's ego. Highly inefficient in that regard.

Your judgement that chess is not infinite is at question. I'm suggesting that where there's a difference between a literal interpretation of infinite and a practical one, the human interpretation is the useful one. That's because our thinking is designed to be useful in interpreting the World around us.

So getting stuck and being unable to get past a literal definition which is also unhelpful isn't useful in a practical sense, whereas accepting that a practical definition is useful whereas a literal one isn't is useful in a practical sense.

The conclusion I'm recommending is that it's useful to go with a practical understanding, rather than getting stuck in a literal understanding which isn't helpful. Words are useful things which aid understanding, rather than being barriers to understanding. The phrase "as if it's infinite" comes to mind.

He's also trying to steal my own accolade of misunderstood genius.

On and on

Yes, albeit Fischer random is not chess, it is gambling - some setups are draw and some are winning. You depend on a draw. More fair would be if the pawns are placed on their origin positions and then white, as a representative of the challenging army, put first piece of his choice wherever he likes on his back rank followed by the black with a piece of his choice, then white again and so on until all pieces are set. In this case deploying the pieces would be the challenge and part of the strategy of its own while in essence you still have got 960.

So tygxc, you really think you know more about proof than the mathematicians i talked to, and all the math majors i talked to, and at this point the dozens of other people that i've shown your ignorance to?

We know EXACTLY what you are trying to explain tygxc.

and we all know how you are wrong. none of us take what you say seriously.

however, you have been consistently failing to understand what people are saying to you. easy evidence of this is you completely misinterpreting the wiles argument. everyone else knew what i was referring to, yet you interpreted it as soemthing that literally happened.

from me:
"Once 7 men are reached castling rights are forfeited. I never heard of such a rule."
from tygxc - he concedes:
"++ It is no rule, it is a practical observation."
In other words its not so.
There is no 'forfeit'. Its a falsehood that there is.
So even with 7 men its not 'solved' - an option of the game was ignored.
Stands.
And also stands: there's no 'weakly solved'.
tyg having fun with that phrase ...
tyg could claim that Julius Caesar was actually Bill Gates because tyg 'weakly solved' it.

tyg is wrong - but he is 'special' in that he demonstrates how to attempt to be 'special' in a polite way.
He spouts his nonsense - but its 'all dressed up'.
Its 'logic-denial' but he does it better than the science deniers and much much better than 'the arrogant guy' (whose name begins with 'O'.)
He's enjoying defending weak positions that are crassly illogical.
And for years now.
-----------------------------------
Here's his post from over 9000 posts ago. In January 2022.
The second post of this forum.
His statement about '5 years' is false even though he's trying to dress it up with analogies.
But he still got 134 thumbs up.
" tygxc 56 #2
Has chess been solved? No
Can chess be solved? Yes, it takes 5 years on cloud engines.
Will chess be solved? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying 5 million $ for the cloud engines and the human assistants during 5 years.

Have humans walked on Mars? No
Can humans walk on Mars? Yes
Will humans walk on Mars? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying billions of $ to build and launch a spacecraft."
----------------------------------------------------
All of his posts since then have been attempts to claim the same invalid thing with various auxiliary claims also invalid - for example that chess is a draw with best play. Its not proven and might never be.
Some things really are proven.
Like that there can't be any greatest possible prime number.
There's no such thing.
And the proof that there isn't is very neat.
---------------------------------
But tyg has courage.
He doesn't care much if at all if nobody agrees with him.
That shows some strength of character.
But does he believe his own nonsense?
I suggest No. He doesn't.
He's playing with semantics. But in a somewhat sophisticated way.
Like movies about reverse time travel can be 'popular' because they're well made.

I think I played 11 games of Chess960, winning ten and drawing one from what was a very difficult to find winning position. I think that none of the starting positions were anything but drawn with best play. I think there's more chance to win in the standard start position, actually. From that position the pieces, each in their own way, are more active than in any other starting positions.

I respect him.

@9487

"still will have only played about 1 position out of every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 unique positions (i.e. 10^13 vs. 10^43)."
++ This mistake keeps coming up: it is not necessary to visit all legal positions to weakly solve chess as Schaeffer did for Checkers. Besides, the vast majority of the 10^44 legal positions can never result from optimal play. Look at 3 samples: https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking multiple underpromotions from both sides.
Therefore Gurion's 10^37 is a better estimate.
https://univ-avignon.hal.science/hal-03483904 
Weakly solving needs only 1 black answer to the reasonable white moves, not all black moves. Hence a square root.
That leads to 10^17 positions to weakly solve Chess.
In that light 10^13 is not that far from 10^17.