Chess will never be solved, here's why

@13462

"Here is AlphaZero sacrificing 3 pawns sequentially without gaining 3 tempi"
++ You can sacrifice pawns or even pieces or a queen for other benefits but tempi.
In this case the dark square weakness of the black king.
You can sacrifice a whole piece or even a queen to lure the defense away from the king.
That is not the discussion here: the discussion is if +1 tempo in the initial position could be enough to win. It cannot. You cannot convert the +1 tempo to something substantial like +1 pawn or a forced checkmate or forced loss of material. In common gambits +2 tempi do not make up for the loss of a pawn. If +2 tempi cannot convert, then a fortiori +1 tempo cannot either.

@13459

"Even if you could define a tempo, why on Earth would you think they are all equal?"
++ The discussion is not about tempi in general, but about the +1 tempo white is up in the initial position.

"Any such exchange rate is going to be dead wrong often" ++ It is adequate for gambits in openings, i.e. close to the initial position

"There are definitely positions where an "equal exchange" is winning for the material, and positions where it is winning for the tempi." ++ Example?

"Four tempi obviously equal a king" +4 tempi > 1 pawn, that is enough to win

You don't think right for this discussion.

@13460

"no line where that +1 tempo leads to, for example, a forced win of a pawn"
++ If there were such a line, then it has to be fast because of the dilution effect.
If it were fast, then it would have been found long ago.

"What position do you refer to when you say 1 pawn? In the starting position?"
++ The starting position or close to it, like gambit openings.

"we don't know how many pawns up is enough to win" ++ We do know.
+1 pawn near the initial position is enough to win. We know that from incorrect gambits.

"we don't know where it leads to with optimal play"
++ We know. It evaporates from +0.33 to 0.00 by the dilution effect.

still waiting on any deductive proof of any of tygxc's claims.

@13466

"an extra tempo is inadequate to win because the initial position is drawn"
++ It is the other way around:
the initial position is a draw because the extra tempo is inadequate to win.

"Note that the idea of all tempi being equal is absurd too." ++ Tempi are time units of 1 ply.

"Even if you could define what a tempo is." ++ A tempi is a ply.

"Does moving a piece that has been developed count as zero tempi or one?"
++ It depends where it goes. 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1 is -2 tempi.

"would moving a piece to a square it could get to in two moves count as two tempi?"
++ It depends on the square.

"just randomly developing achieves certain equality"
++ The center is more important than development. E.g. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 is a good move because it challenges the center, though it does not develop any piece.

so tygxc, wheres the deductive proof from the axioms of chess rules that chess is a draw?

the tempo valuation is a made up estimated metric. deductive proofs have no such metrics.

optimissed remember that arguing with feelings, as you are currently doing, isnt accepted in any sort of mathematical journals.

to all observers, optimissed is one of the main trolls. he only values tygxc's "opinion" because he too has been extensively called out on his lies by the normal people of the forum, and besides that, you'll notice how substanceless opti's statements are. it's to the point that we dont even feel the need to correct him as observers always almost immediately recognize optimissed for what he is.

you still havent addressed how you thought a guy was calling me stupid but he then confirmed that he was calling YOU stupid, lmfao.

@13465

"translate any gain or loss in chess in terms of tempi"
++ That is a bold claim. Right now engines translate any gain or loss in terms of pawn units,
so with 3 tempi = 1 pawn you could translate in terms of tempi as well.

However, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 is a good move while it challenges the center, but does not develop any piece into play, so is loss of tempo for the benefit of influence on the center.

hmm

3 piece endings.

Accurately is harder than perfectly. 5 piece endings if you mean perfectly.

They'll generally fail a randomly chosen White win in KNNvKP for example. (The average mate depth of White wins in basic rules in that endgame is around 58 full moves - unknown under competition rules, could be higher or lower.)

Last version of Rybka I got (rather old now) couldn't do KBNvK mates (4 piece).

But note that there is a lot of provably correct theory for endgames with a small number of men (including KNNvKP and KBNvK) and SF at least has tailored tweaks to it's static evaluations based on such theory. It might be expected to do better in those endgames than say 20 piece endgames where such tweaks are not possible.

hmm

@13480

"They'll generally fail a randomly chosen White win in KNNvKP for example."

1. As it is a win, it is irrelevant to weakly solving chess, which is a draw, i.e. cannot be reached from the initial position with optimal play from both sides.
2. At blitz speed, not at 5 days per move as in ICCF.
3. It shows human superiority: Troitsky (1866 - 1942) solved it when computers did not yet exist.

hmm

"The dilution effect" is an imperfect engine evaluation in a position reached by imperfect engine play. That's the fundemental problem here that leads us nowhere in this discussion.

tygxc assumes that chess is a draw as part of the solution - so by definition whatever tygxc comes up with cannot be a solution, as its own creation assumes what it is trying to prove.

in addition, a weak solution by definition deals with inoptimal moves. not only as part of the solution tree/algorithm itself, but in addition as the moves needed to calculate what the tree/algorithm is.

you'll notice how tygxc will never address this.

its also funny how optimissed cant understand the concept of a rhetorical question.

1. You confuse weakly solving with a weak solution as well as relying on your big red telephone to tell you the result of the starting position. (And in 5 of the example games I posted there were multiple blunders so after the first blunder the positions were drawn.)

2. Blunder rates in the endgame generally increase with increasing think time. A think time of 37 minutes per move as in the example I posted is hardly blitz. You're welcome to try these at 5 days per move and tell us in a few years, but note the blunder rate at 37 minutes per move was already more than 5 times the blunder rate at 1 second per move.

3. Agreed - but only for small numbers of men. Engines and humans get weaker with increased numbers of men, but humans get weaker much faster.

Fact remains - latest version of SF can't play 5 man chess perfectly.