Chess will never be solved, here's why

"To me it is obvious" would be a much more reasonable statement ...

you just dont have the full context. I have full confidence that you will reach the same position as I, and everyone here but tygxc, once you have that context. however, I highly recommend you do not do so, as while there is some good info on this thread, it is completely swamped by Terrence Howard-level BS and the wasted space of the subsequent debunking of those claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess just read this and never come back to this thread. I am only here to make sure that Tygxc doesnt mislead newcomers to the thread.

You can't "solve" the first 10 ply of a chess game...*facepalm*. Why do you think that tablebases use retrograde analysis?

Not that I would ever write a single line of code because some crackpot wanted proof of something anyway...

Well, yes, I'm not eager to go tumbling down this rabbit hole ...

I simply meant that tygxc could've said "obvious" instead of "proven", and the statement now becomes far less contentious ...

I have seen no such statement by Tromp either...there's little doubt Tygxc is, at best, taking an offhand comment seriously, at worst just willfully mispresenting Tromp's work as being in lockstep with his. He's done it before. It's misleading and disingenuous.

ah, i see where I misread. But here'ss the thing, tygxc genuinely believes that it counts as being mathematically proven.

well, a better way to put it is that tygxc doesnt have the faintest idea of the distinction between a mathematical proof and a casual proof.

and so tygxc throws around all these terms which require a mathematical proof, but then his justification for those are either: an engine evaluation, conventional wisdom, misreading definitions, or literal arithmetic errors.

for example, tygxc claimed that a certain position (where white was down a bishop in the opening) had been mathematically "ultra-weakly solved" (IE the outcome of such a position with perfect play had been rigorously determined, although the exact game tree is not necessarily known). Elroch pointed out that tygxc had no such mathematical proof, and tygxc then claimed that elroch was saying that he believed that it wasnt a white loss, which elroch never claimed.

I think chess is chess.

-Java, 2024

tygxc once even tried to cite merriam webster as the definition of "proof", despite the fact that mathematical proofs are completely different.

Yes, it's the difference between thinking you have a solution and proving you have a solution. I find it particularly annoying that @tygxc refers to work that definitely does it properly and claims they have not!

A reason bodged "solutions" like those advocated by @tygxc are of very little interest is that there is a continuum of them, all the way from a blind guess to just short of doing the job properly.

"in Tygxc's parade of premises"
false premises.
tygxc's parade of False premises.
But - if you change the formal 'weakly solved' to just 'approximations to solving' then tygxc's positions aren't so invalid.
Everytime somebody wins a chess game they have done an 'approximation to solving' though.
So that would be a 'woopteedoo!' ...
---------------------------
tygxc's invalid claims remind me of the scientists who claimed they had discovered cold fusion.
Those scientists got a lot of attention including attention they didn't want ...
That was in 1989.
Their claims were debunked the same year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusiontygxc has been 'claiming' for two years now.
He's been debunked the whole time.
But still claims on.
Its like flat-earthism.
Society debunked flat-earthism before that ridiculous flat notion even got started.
But flat-earthism carries on.
So will tygxc.
Somehow - he's more 'respectable' than the flat-earthers though.
Not as shrill or strident in his tone.
Not as obsessed with proclaiming his message to the world.

Not only that, he uses an estimated number of positions with NO promotions as it it was ok for games that can have any number of promotions to queens and knights.

Astounding?
Well consider the idiocy of flat-earthism and I'd say they have tygxc beat in that department.

Not that I would ever write a single line of code

cuz u cant lol !

'obnoxious'.
Yes. Like some gases can be 'noxious'.
tygxc with his own special denials.
But denialisms are huge on the world scale.
Vaccination denial - denial of manmade global warming - geocentrism - denial of evolution - flat-earthism ...
tygxc perhaps missed his calling.
Perhaps he should have been a criminal defense lawyer.
'somebody messed with the DNA evidence! You must Acquit!'

You're just being tiresome now. This is why you snipe and run...you've got nothing but pebbles to throw.

The truth is that the weak solutions of checkers and connect 4 involved the construction of strategies that rigorously deal with all legal opponent moves, because that's the definition of a weak strategy. Your mistaken concept makes no sense because it is ridiculously vague. It's also not much use - all you need to do to beat you armed with one of your weak non-strategies is to play a inferior move and then outplay you (you get no further guidance from the strategy). I feel you should be able to understand this; your problem is inertia - you prefer to stick to being wrong than to change and improve your understanding.

Yes - but tygxc does not see his problem as his problem.
Can you imagine him changing his mind?
Having been dead wrong for so long about several things?
He's so Invested.
Just the cognitive dissonance alone would be unbearable to him.
And its big brother - cognition Bias.
It seems obvious that cognitive dissonance has been acting on tygxc alll along.
Somehow he couldn't balance two conflicting ideas and be objective about them - at almost any point in the whole subject and picture.
Cognitive dissonance is an enormous force in the world.
Often negatively. Or very negatively.
Why? Because of evolutionary and reality factors of physical survival.
Where hesitation is fatal.
---------------------------------------------
there's analogies in chess.
Like for example the Queen's gambit declined. A main line opening.
White's cpawn at c4 attacks black's dpawn at d5.
Black's dpawn can't slide by the attack because white's d4 pawn blocks him from doing so.
But does this mean that either side 'has to take'?
No.
The pawns can remain in mutually attack position- aimed at each other mortally as it were.
It isn't 'you have to take or be taken - its A or B'.
No. That's dichotomous A or B binary thinking. And it doesn't follow.
Its A or B or C.
And C constantly happens - although far from always.
The two pawns remain in mutual attack formation. C.
A and B are accomodated but so is C.
It can be called 'objectivity'.
Freedom from cognitive dissonance and cognition bias.

tygxc's response to objective explanations of his delusions is to literally ignore them, or misunderstand them. it's gotten to the point that he ignores my comments completely nowadays, as he knows he cant argue against them.

at this point it's only a matter of time before tygxc starts ignoring you guys too.

Its like when your parents go "well your a kid you didn't understand and was imagining how you feel instead "

And they just win by ignoring you which is what tyxgc is doing