Chess will never be solved, here's why

There's a difference between default and probable value. It's fine to say that chess being a draw is more likely. It is incorrect to say that a draw is the "correct" result and that a forced win would be an unexpected and suspect surprise. If a set of forced wins exist, they will be necessarily narrow and probably dependent on some heretofore undiscovered truths about chess in terms of positional play, much like when Alpha Zero wowed all the super-GMs with some fancy bishop tactics, etc.

Tygxc's premise is that even though machine learning engines just hit the scene (and engines only just surpassed humans circa 2006), that the possibilities of chess have been exhausted, ergo all draws, ergo chess itself being a draw. This is no different than the best players in 1900 saying the same thing. Chess is not exhausted, and we've only played some infinitesimal percentage of possible games. What has happened is that engines have reached a plateau for the moment, and humans are no longer capable of helping out. We're obsolete.

If anyone besides Tygxc actually believes that engines 10, or 20, or 50+ years from now will not be capable enough to beat today's ICCF "centaurs" (more like hydras now, given the number of engines being used together), go ahead and speak up...

It's an interesting question how badly they will be able to beat them!

Now, the coffee's been served but before I look at the given definition, I want to make a rhetorical arguments of "if you don't know what the information means, how can it be perfect or full".

If we imagine an analogy of a chess position in the form of a code which hasn't been broken. The earth's being attacked by Martians and we're able to pick up the coded message. But how have we got perfect information if we don't know what it means?

So similarly, a complex chess position. It may be a win for either side or perhaps a draw. We can see the position clearly but we are not capable of determining an evaluation. It's the same thing. We have the information but it's given in a code which we can't interpret. We can see the chess position but we can't tell who's winning. We can only giess, based on rules of thumb. How is that perfect information? If I had perfect information on something, I'd expect it to be understandable.

Your premise that is that you are capable of understanding any information given to you. Reams of evidence on these forums would show this to be demonstrably false. Don't feel bad, though...it's false for any and all human beings.

I don't think that's entirely true I think people try to understand they just don't do a very good job of it

You seem confused between information and making deductions from that information.

For example, if I give the question to you:

"How many factors does the following number have: 2748132412641276392817612648721647126498127348712742077492749274927409217498127409827154012740981275012834223895821975294281275987209412734981269461290120e487120874981264978126e49712647126497124712948219272847284712841 ?"

you have complete information about the problem. That does not mean you can solve it.

I completely agree with all you say after the first two sentences about the difference between default, probable and correct.

I do accept a difference and I agree with your implication that "correct" is a precise term which demands proof. I personally believe that chess is definitely a draw and that may be termed a correct evaluation but I accept that those who disagree are well within their rights to do so.

The reason is that "probable" is a fairly objective descriptor, "correct" is also precisely objective but "default" depends on value judgements and on human decisions. It's a default if someone wants to call it that and make it that. It isn't a default position to those who don't want it as one.

HOWEVER, within the paradigm of a logically valid proposal, it's possible to frame a procedure so that "chess is drawn" is the default premise. That doesn't mean it has to be accepted as true. The paradigm simply consists of a given in a set of logical premises which are to be used to formulate a valid argument. So a logical proposal may consist of or use a premise, the truth value of which is not known, but which may be assumed to be true or false for the purposes of the exercise.

That's the context in which "drawn as default" is often used.

At least, that's as good an argument as I'm capable of giving at the moment. I hope it was somewhat clear.

"There is no need to. "

argument from repetition fallacy. you continue to not provide justification, as per usual.

its impossible to claim that something loses by force until you have accounted for every possible line. you havent.

dude you have like no concept of basic logical proof, as I predicted.

"Appeal to Ignorance
 
This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim."

seem familiar?

Yes I accept that. I often question myself as to whether I've understood something. Again though, since we're discussing defaults, often it's easier to assume that a particular person isn't worth expending too much energy on. Being honest with you, you've impressed me recently. Some others haven't. tygxc hasn't, for instance, but he's good chesswise re. knowledge of openings and so forth. Not so dependable at chess analytics though.

Can a computer solve it? Can you program a computer to do so? I can remember from when I used to write number crunching programs that most PCs are into powers very early. If you can't solve it, then is the information meaningful? So is there perfect information?

All it is, is a number. It doesn't come with an inbuilt request to find its factors. Chess, however, regarding "solving" is precisely that and requires precisely that. Not only what the evaluation is but what the best lines are.

I think that a philosopher might insist that your example isn't meaningful. It isn't analagous to chess.

In Tygxc's case, he actually uses "game theoretic value" as a premise that aids in his "proof"...assuming the result first to help prove the concept. You can hypothesize "if we assume that X then Y..." but cannot then extrapolate that to "if we assume X, then Y...I think I see Y, ergo X is true and not just an assumption", because there are other possible explanations. This is why he must use Herik's definition, because the real definition does not allow for his mental gymnastics. This is a form of "begging the question" (the original usage, not the modern colloquial usage where "begging the question" means "prompting a question" or "calls into question").

Yes I understand the distinction you make, because I also think he uses it wrongly. Begging the question was used in Aristotelian philosophy, which I didn't study in any depth. But yes, I think it's a personality thing. I'm open to persuasion that 1. g4 may lead to a forced loss but I don't think it does. That is, I assume white can avoid a loss and that my assumption may be wrong. I'm completely convinced that chess is innately drawn, without being able to prove it to anyone, although I can make a decent inductive case that chess is drawn but Herik didn't impress me.

Quite honestly, I can't really understand how ty thinks.. I don't see why there should be such a determination to be able to pronounce on things we aren't sure about and I rather miss the rattigan with his seven GMs with seven mops analogy.

As i said earlier, i think tygxc just literally doesnt have any understanding of absolute logic, and so has seen a few 'smart' things on the internet and has dunning krugered himself into the fantasy he's in.

notice how he tries to throw around fancy terms and definitions while at the same time completely missing basic logical points and analogies?

if you see tygxc as thinking along the lines of "I'm right no matter what, and ive seen a couple things on the internet that seem smart", a lot of what tygxc says make a lot more sense.

He isn't thick and DK implies he is. I think, at a guess, he's used to speaking with authority because maybe he's someone we've heard of. Old school definitely and still thinks that the old masters circa 1950s to 70s sow words of wisdom wherever they roam. Only words of wisdom because they were so famous. Einstein didn't believe in quantum theory and he held back the progress of physics by years. Someone else would have come up with relativity because that's mainly a rearrangement of Maxwell's equations.

Were this true, he would probably not have needed to or bothered to try to cajole Mr. Tromp into doing his work for him.

I wouldn't know.

Exactly. Elroch puts it very efficiently.
And 'O' repeats his same mistakes over and over. Year in year out.
And 'O' will not 'learn' and instead projects his own deficiencies.
And instead - also chooses to troll.
'O' is @Optimissed of course.

Recently in another forum about stalemate there were some comments about stalemate and about draws in general.
A poster stated that the FIDE rules and USCF rules are diffferent regarding what is a win and what is a draw when one side's flag drops and the other side has minimal or near-minimal material.
The nitty gritty difference might be with two knights.

In FIDE rules apparently per the poster the two knights wins against a flag drop even if there is just the two Kings elsewhere on the board - because a helpmate can be constructed.
But in USCF rules - per the poster - those two knights need a pawn somewhere on the board for the other side - for the knights to beat a flag drop and get the full point.
Apparently because in most of the possible positions of the pawn - a forced mate would be possible against a King locked on a corner square.
Note that a forced win would also be possible in many other situations - if the locked King had some other piece - like for example a knight on the diagonally opposite corner to the King being checkmated by force. 
Or even two knights in that area.
But USCF apparently - per the poster - arbitrarily only allows the pawn.

Example - white to move with black King at h8 and white King at h6 and white knights at e7 and e5.
White has checkmates with both Nf7# and Ng6#.
But for the position on move to be legal - black has to have had a previous move with something other than his king.
Of the 48 squares that might legally be available to a pawn on a chessboard - 10 of those squares are 'funny' and don't work in this case.
They're in different categories.
But the other 38 squares do work. 
Apparently that's USCF's rationale.

Does the computer project (noun) - to 'solve' chess struggle with rules?
It definitely does.
Not even being able to handle castling with only 8 pieces on the board.
Then there's the 50 move rule and so on.
Even without 'extra rules' - the computers can't do it.
And somebody astutely pointed out earlier here that humans have become 'obsolete' to help them with this.