Chess will never be solved, here's why

hmm

or this grand prix:

with black to move (having the tempo)...re: black hazza humongous lead...5 points to 2 points.

HMM

Lol tygxc is getting allies slowly look at the other two threads

only cuz ppl found a attackee after opti got opti'ed out. Ty challenges w/ thot provokers...and i TOTALLY support that. esp against talkers who dont do a/t except sit on tom thumb & philosophize.

what from tygxc is thought provoking though? his entire platform is just a rejection of mathematical logic.

im genuinely curious at how tygxc could be in any way a challenge beyond how terrence howard is a challenge.

its just that he challenges ur common sense as u secretly push ur own away. thats a u problem not a Ty problem. yet ppl attack Ty. only cuz theyre frustrated-angry w/ themself for abandoning their own common sense.

Not really. He gets some posters that come and go and know nothing about the problem. He's never had a single ally with any chops to speak of. Stop giving him new places to start his mantra over again.

again...just jealous. hism blism lol !

You would be the expert on that.

Troitzky gave a very comprehensive, but still incomplete, solution of the White wins under basic rules only. He didn't solve the Black wins. He would have almost certainly failed the White win in 108 against Syzygy from the position I posted here under competition rules.

Tablebases completely solve both White and Black wins under both basic and competition rules (though weakly and from only nodes with no repeated 9.2.2 positions in the latter case).

Thanks for paper showing that Alpha Zero considers there to be a bare minimum of 4.5 candidates per move in classical chess (figure 11, page 23). Handy for refuting you.

Again, I am genuinely curious how someone who literally rejects mathematical logic is challenging anything. give specific examples.

i would be genuinely surprised to find that tygxc cited a single source that did not directly contradict at least one of his claims.

if theres a finite # of moves ?...itll get solved one day. not counting 3-folds. and possibly including 1000+ move games (so long as one sides improving...). its not like SHA-256 where theres a infinite # of permutes [then one day the 10^77 (decimal) permutes gets maxed (and assuming no collisions along the way)].

Or night.
The main factor to 'solving chess' isn't the algorithms or software - nor is it the available money - nor even the amount of man hours put in - nor even the number of years of computer time!
Its the processing speed of the computers.
The Speed.
The speed of the Hardware.
Determines both if and when chess could theoretically be solved.
If its going to take trillions of years - the sun would have engulfed the earth long before then or various other cosmological events would have 'put the kibosh' on the project. Or both.
Or even just extra-major nuclear war on earth.
No more project.

Someone who can't tell the difference between finite and infinite is probably not the sharpest tool in the box.

As I said.

Narcissism is a problem for you in situations like this because, unlike balanced people, you are unable to comprehend that the knowledge and understanding of the entire mathematical world for a century or so is enormously superior to your own.

If you did want to start to catch up (and had the capability to do so - this seems unlikely, since you are having problems even with the simple distinction between finite and infinite cardinality) any authoritative source would be able to help.

Cardinal numbers (Wikipedia)

Cardinal numbers (Wolfram Mathworld)

Cardinal numbers (The Encyclopedia of Mathematics)

how do we know that the best move isn't sticking a fork into a toaster?