Chess will never be solved, here's why

"Human or engine evaluations (like +0.33) mean nothing in absolute terms."

we all know this, none of it can be used in proof. yet tygxc continues to do so. i wonder why. (this is rhetorical)

btw the autism question was genuine, i know from experience. most people here (other than tygxc) are not participating out of some inflated ego of themselves.

Peoples opinions don't change easily

People kinda assumed you can change them by arguing . The only way you can is if your open minded and most people that chose to argue here don't .There's actually a couple of communities that are really good for these types of debates but chess.com forums are not.

@Elroch

@MEGACHE3SE I think that's true I'm pretty sure it's because they like arguingim not sure if tyxgc is autistic though that might be a bit uncalled for

i dont think tygxc is autistic. i was wondering if jimbalter was autistic from their complete misunderstanding of the trying to end the argument

i myself am autistic, thats why i asked.

Oh that's fair then most people just use autism as an insult though unfurtently

@9526

"Mere "evidence" of the game value of a move such as 1. g4 is not a solution, weak or strong."
Prof. Van den Herik writes that game knowledge is beneficial in solving games.
I need no game tree to state 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5? loses by force for white. The same 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? The same 1 g4?

Likewise I need no game tree to see 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4.
If a way to draw for black against 1 e4 is found then a fortiori there is one against 1 a4.

@9535

"I don't see why people continue arguing."

++ Chess is known to be a draw.
The 105 ICCF WC Finals' draws even show how to draw.

@9511

"the "five years" bit is because"
++ GM Sveshnikov said so.
I admit I was surprised by it at first.
When I looked deeper, I saw he was right.
After all he was the world's authority on computer chess analysis: he taught grandmasters how to analyse chess with computers. He held an MSc. and almost a PhD. in engineering,
became a chess professional, but had to cut down competitive play because of cancer.

@9541

"Those are games played by strong human players."
++ With engines, at 5 days per move average.

@9529

"here remain people here who can't understand what it means to solve a game?"
++ Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition.

Optimissed wrote: About two days ago, I was looking at the mathematician Cantor's idea of transfinite numbers. I read it and knew he was talking rubbish.

Good grief. No wonder this discussion is so long ... there are numerous contributions by pompous ignoramuses. This one even blabbered about his IQ. I'm a member and former officer of Mensa, with a proctor-tested IQ of 150. (No, BigIlliterateMoronTroll665, that's not a brag.) I have friends who are members of triple-9 societies. IQ is a very narrow measure, and not of knowledge or understanding, which Optimissed and tygxc have very little of. There are some actually understanding people here, in some areas but not others. e.g., MEGACHE3SE understands the math and the flaws in tygxc's arguments, but "I was wondering if jimbalter was autistic from their complete misunderstanding of the trying to end the argument" is complete nonsense -- I'm not autistic and I had no misunderstanding of BigTroll665's comment. Perhaps MEGACHE3E's own autism is making it difficult to understand BT and my response to him.

Anyway, I've quickly learned that this thread is a complete waste. Ta ta.

@9530

"Human or engine evaluations (like +0.33) mean nothing in absolute terms.
we all know this, none of it can be used in proof."

"yet tygxc continues to do so." ++ No. The only evaluation used is win/draw/loss at the end of the game reaching a 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition.

@9546

"Did they play the top engine move every game?"
++ No. They use multiple engines and multiple tunings of engines.

"You can keep bringing up ICCF results, but that doesn't mean that much."
++ It is the strongest chess on the planet, stronger than engines, stronger than human grandmasters.
They have now reached perfection: 105 games with optimal play from both sides, all draws.

I have beaten stockfish my self so has one of my ADHD friends stockfish has very little understanding of how to avoid/generate an attack

@9551

"Chess engines are not "god", they cannot play perfect chess."
++ ICCF (grand)masters with engines and at 5 days / move average have now reached perfection, they can now draw against any present or future superior being.

Maybe it would be a draw if it was 100 petrovs ...

@9554

"Maybe it would be a draw if it was 100 petrovs"
++ They try all kinds: Petrov, Ruy Lopez, Italian, Sicilian Najdorf, French, Catalan, Queen's Gambit, Queen's Indian Defense, Nimzovich Indian Defense... All draws.
Surprising that there is not one, but several ways to draw against 1 e4 and 1 d4.

@9557

"when they still have room to improve"
Jockeyed by a human ICCF (grand)master they now reached perfection at 5 days / move average.
Maybe future engines can do the same at 5 hours/move, or 5 minutes/move, or 5 seconds/move.
Maybe they can do it with artificial intelligence instead of a human jockey.