Chess will never be solved, here's why

I hadnt really considered the possibility that tygxc doesnt genuinely believe what he's saying.

but at the same time, wouldnt he respond to my posts if he were just seeking attention or relevance?

I agree with your O analysis. To me, optimissed does approach this thread with a decently open mind. O actually changes his arguments in response to what people say instead of just repeating the same fallacies over and over again like tygxc. He'll never admit that he's learnt anything, but that's just ego. plus, occasionally i'll even learn something from O.

tygxc operates outside of logic. he has no idea what he's talking about.

@tygxc's going to ignore the dozen+ posts in the last day completely debunking his most recent nonsense, and instead attempt to convince you that he has any sort of coherent argument.

for a game to be considered solved, by definition there must be a rigorous mathematical proof of the result. Tygxc LITERALLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF A MATHEMATICAL PROOF. tygxc will likely quote you some definitions of different levels of solving, however, if you check wikipedia, tygxc's comments on the state of such solutions are completely off.

tygxc's math has been found to contain numerous basic arithmetic errors, numerous false assumptions, and a complete lack of rigor. all of which have been pointed out to tygxc many, many times.

in fact, the main reason why many of us stay on this forum is to prevent tygxc from spreading misinformation to people like you.

read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess instead of wasting any time here.

@12700

"Solving the game of chess means:"

++ There are 3 kinds of solved: ultra-weakly, weakly, or strongly.
Utra-weakly means you know by playing a perfect game that it always will be a draw.
Weakly means you know how to draw for black.
Strongly means you know for every legal position if it is a win/draw/loss and how to win or draw.

For all practical purpose chess is already ultra-weakly solved and it is a draw.
The 17 ICCF World Championship Finalists with their servers at average 5 days/move are now weakly solving chess: 110 draws out of 110 games.
Strongly solving chess i.e. a 32-men table base is beyond present technology.

@12706

"we don't know if played perfectly that chess will always be a draw" ++ We know: a draw

"the number of chess games is far too complex"
++ The number of chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082.
The number of legal chess positions is 10^44.
The number of legal chess positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured is 10^37.
The number of legal chess positions without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured is 10^38.
The number of chess positions that could possibly result from optimal play by both sides lies between 10^34 and 10^32.
The number of relevant positions to weakly solving chess is around 10^17.

"It's like shuffling a 52 deck of cards" ++ Can be done in 8*10^67 ways.

"the number chess games is like 10^120 power according to mathematician Claude Shannon" ++ No, the number of chess games is larger, but the number of chess positions is smaller.

@12724

"On the second comment, @tygxc said that chess hasn't been solved yet. On the seventh, he said it's a draw"
++ There are 3 kind of solved.

1. For all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved and it is a draw.
2. Chess is not yet completely weakly solved, i.e. indicating how to draw. The 110 draws out of 110 games in the ICCF World Championship Finals are at least part of a weak solution.
3. Strongly solving chess to a 32-men table base of 10^44 positions is beyond present technology.

@12704

"tumbling down this rabbit hole"
++ The subject is interesting, but unfortunately attracts many trolls.

reminder that tygxc's illogic has been brought up before numerous math professors and dozens of math majors and all have found the same errors and flaws.

im telling them to check wikipedia and not this thread, how am I trolling? I actually address opposing claims instead of just downvoting like a coward.

@tygxc I really dont get how you can stomach KNOWING that you're wrong and deciding to purposefully mislead others anyways. Is it like what playerafar conjectures and you just want the attention? Or do you get a sick kick out of seeing people take your lies seriously?

there's also the possibility that you are just profoundly deluded and uneducated. but at the same time, if you were just uneducated, you would respond to people doing basic corrections to your claims, and I know that you've seen my retellings of how I've brought up your "logic" to math professors and got chided for even bothering with someone as stupid as you are. Do you think I just made it up?

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=634#comment-103622765 @tygxc you claimed this was a legal position. you mind explaining how black got two dark square bishops with 8 black pawns still on the board?

oh wait you wont acknowledge how you're completely misinterpreting every source you cite because you would rather live in ignorance than admit you're wrong.

edit: TYGXC CHANGED THE POSITION AND ITS STILL ILLEGAL LMFAO, WANNA EXPLAIN HOW THE KINGS ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER?!?!?

edit #2: HE CHANGED IT AGAIN AND ITS STILL ILLEGAL LMFAO.

including the later post, thats now FOUR FOR FOUR TIMES that tygxc's claims of the sample set were DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by his examples.

@12735

Dear MEGACHE3SE, as you are right for a change, I am happy to admit that and I have replaced the illegal position by another position from the Sample of 10,000 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured

Here is another:

That explains the reduction from 10^38 to 10^34 or 10^32.

@12734

I cannot really reply to your vague statement about 12 strawmen. If you had said: 'I have submitted <quote1> to <title><first name><last name> of <university name> and he responded <quote2> then I could reply to that. Even better if he made an account and replied here in this thread. As far as I know laughing or insulting are no valid ways of proof.

@12733

"check wikipedia" ++ Wikipedia is not reliable: anybody can edit it. The article is obsolete.

@12732

"without promotions as a whole" ++ No, the Gourion paper gives 4*10^37 as the an upper bound for the number of chess diagrams without promotion to pieces not previously captured. The last 3 words are omitted from the title for brevity and as it is obvious.
If 1 queen, 1-2 rooks, bishops or knights are on the board with 7 or less pawns,
then it is impossible to tell if those pieces are original or promoted.

Both kings are in check...

Lol, you edited that in a hurry. At least you figured it out this time.

""without promotions as a whole" ++ No, the Gourion paper gives 4*10^37 as the an upper bound for the number of chess diagrams without promotion to pieces not previously captured. "

actually it doesnt. try reading it. oh wait that's too much for you.

"Summing over all possibilities yields that the upper bound for the total number of legal chess diagrams without promotion is equal to 3.8521 . . . × 1037 ." (page 7)

@12737

I did not compile the random sample of 10,000 (Tromp did), I only inspected and found none can result from optimal play by both sides. Tromp conjectured only 1 in 1,000,000 could qualify.
That explains the reduction from 10^38 to 10^34 or 10^32.

You still have yet to produce a link to said conjecture.

@12738

"without promotion" means without promotion to a piece not previously captured, or without an obvious promotion. If 1 queen is on the board and 7 or less pawns, then you cannot tell if the queen is original or promoted. So for the Gourion number it counts as without promotion, even if the queen is promoted.

still requires promotion to reach this position, BTW.

you blame tromp's data, but the reality is that you are completely misinterpreting what the data set is to begin with.

its hilarious that tygxc is now blaming tromp for the fact that the positions dont line up with his claims. no you moron, its that you are completely misrepresenting what the position set is. those arent a legal positions set LMFAO.

you are on your 4th position, and it STILL doesnt meet the criteria that you claim your position is. there's two dark squared black bishops in your 3rd, and both kings are in check in your 4th.

tygxc why do you continue to dodge the fact that i brought your arguments to multiple math professors and all of them found the same errors that I (and others) point out to you?