Chess will never be solved, here's why

You can continue trolling tho I don't mind

It only exposes yourself more and more

@9969

"a draw doesn't mean perfect play" ++ But 106 draws out of 106 games does.

"zero innnaccuracies only means the engine agreed" ++ I do not count errors by engine evaluation, I count errors by observing final results: 106 draws out of 106 games.

"I'll wait till a kings gambit comes up"
++ Nobody is foolish enough to play King's Gambit in a the ICCF World Championship Finals.

"we need drawable openings that are slightly worse" ++ The ICCF (grand)masters do not choose openings to entertain you, they play openings to become the World Champion.
If you are interested in slightly unbalanced openings, then look at TCEC,
where they impose chosen openings on engines.

"an equal position would 100% be a draw" ++ The initial position is equal and now 100% draw.

This page has 1) g4 doing worst against an h5 reply.
But winning against at least three black replies.
Even against d5.
https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=2&n=333&ms=g4&ns=333tygxc I couldn't find anything on the net yet as to how 1) g4 does with computers.

Again you need to prove that it is a draw in slightly worse or better positions if it is "dead equal" you will just get confirmation bias you need a spectrum

Look 105/105 draws doesnt mean anything that is all it is it doesn't mean they have solved anything it means they drew that means they might be close to solving chess but it is not solved yet

Just close to being solved

All the openings you said they played were all drawish

It does not mean the game is a draw it means the openings they played is a draw

If you can't prove chess is a draw in slightly worse but EQUAL positions then chess isn't a draw

They haven't proved that yet it is just statistics chess might be a draw but not proven we need more games

tygxc I imagine there are openings that top GM's Never play.
Maybe there's a list.
Anyway - lots to talk about here.
Whether the forum topic or other chess things or other things.
Doesn't look like BC and the other new guy are going to shut up anybody up at all. Nor succeed in 'protecting' anybody.
Did BC post just now? Should I scroll up? I don't think so.

Womp womp everyone playerafar is such a 🤓 am I right 😏

Exactly i bet I could play 106 draws doesn't mean I played well though

@9980

"you need to prove that it is a draw in slightly worse or better positions"
++ No, the initial position is a draw.

"close to solving chess but it is not solved yet"
++ The 106 ICCF WC draws mean that Chess is ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
The 106 ICCF WC draws do not yet mean Chess is weakly solved, as they have not yet exhausted all reasonable white attempts to win. The 106 ICCF WC draws are a subset of the weak solution.

"the openings you said they played were all drawish"
++ White tries to win, black tries to draw. Black succeeds, white fails.

"it means the openings they played is a draw"
++ They play the openings they believe give them the best chance to win.
Catalan, Nimzovich Indian Defense, Najdorf... are not drawish openings.

What about the least chance to win instead of the most ? But still a draw

@9981

"If you can't prove chess is a draw in slightly worse but EQUAL positions then chess isn't a draw"
++ Chess starts from the initial position and that is an equal position.

"we need more games" ++ There are still 30 ongoing games.

But if it is equal it is still a draw just slightly worse

@9984

"Draws with humans... Humans suck at chess."
++ Engines make less mistakes than the strongest human.
Two engines make less mistakes than 1 engine.
Engines at 5 days/ move make less mistakes than engines at 5 minutes/move.
ICCF (grand)masters with engines at 5 days/move make less mistakes than the strongest engine at 5 days / move.
They have now reached 0 mistakes.

tygxc gotta love how you once again ignored the complete disproof of everything youve said here.

Btw megache3se I asked playerafar why don't you play chess and only talk on forums

He didn't reply he tried to claim "hypocrite " lol

Could you give me a reason since he isn't giving one for me ?

'weakly solving' is used - but they should improve it.
This one's about chess - not checkers.
And if he 'weakly solved it' he didn't solve it.
If it takes a year to proceed from a 7 man tablebase to an 8 man tablebase then to get to 9 men multiplies by another more than 500 positions.
Because of ten different piece types and the many squares that each one of them could be placed on.
Which means that to reach 10 men multiplies by 25,000.
So 500 years for 9.
25,000 years for 10.
And so on. Trillions of trillions of years to get to 32 men - let alone do 32.
Got an AlphaZero link on 1) g4 ty?
Na3 'fit to draw'?
That hasn't been proven tyg. Nor that it cant win by force even - however unlikely it looks.
Regarding first mistake and last mistake after 1) g4
just one big enough 'first mistake' by black can be enough for white to win.
'First and last mistake'.
You're doing OK tyg. As I said - I don't want to argue.
BC and his helpers can 'troll/argue'
Expressing disagreement - different from 'arguing'.

You mean you can troll argue? Cause you can't even answer a question

Pure conjecture. Every word out of your mouth about "errors" is meaningless. Engines and human beings are not capable of determining what a subtle "error" maybe be in the context of solving chess, only in the context of current play capabilities, which have temporarily plateaued...

The good news is that these 100+ draws happened and you have gone out on your limb and made your proclamation that perfect play is now a done deal...so, in coming years when there are decisive ICCF games, you will, naturally, want to come back and apologize for being wrong and recant your position...

tygxc is 'tough'. He's a fighter.
People keep trying to take him down and they keep failing.
For two years now and almost 10,000 posts.

from Dio just now:
"you will, naturally, want to come back and apologize for being wrong and recant..."
Lol!
Not likely that tygxc nor 'O' will be doing that ...
I've got this notion that people here will not be building their stocks portfolios on those ...