Chess will never be solved, here's why

And there's the problem with TLAs

how so much commenting????

literally lying about a known mathematical proof isnt "demonstrating" anything optimissed LOL.

To quote Optimissed:

"About 16 years ago, I had the reputation of being the best debater in the English Language on Facebook. Not sure how many people were on facebook back then. Several millions?"

And Yet, optimissed cannot point to a single post on this forum, of a person who has spent longer than a day on this forum that supports him or has been permanently convinced by an argument that optimissed makes.

A good debater is not someone with an impossibly stubborn mind. A debater is someone who convinces others, be it opposition or neutral parties.

Optimissed cannot name a single instance where he has done such a thing (making up fantasies about what's going on in people's heads doesnt count). And as he's said, hes been on the forum longer than most.

By the definition of a debater's goal, he is the single worst debater on this forum.

Even tygxc can temporarily convince others of his fantasy.

MEGA neither one of them intends to be convincing.
Its like they both want to be embarassed.
tygxc's actions lead directly to his illogic being constantly refuted while he continues to pretend it isn't.
Optimissed's falsehoods are constantly exposed.
Their 'defenses' are different.
tygxc pretends that those refuting his illogic 'don't understand' or 'are trolls' but almost never with naming anybody.
MEGA - tygxc's reason for complaining about the coin flip disucssion had little to do with that subject.
He objected because you were in that discussion.
------------------
O's 'defenses' are different. As he continues to be exposed he will just continue to talk about those exposing him.
His other pseudo-defense is to repeatedly bring up IQ scores and the like.
He never has a real defense although sometimes attempts phony excuses.
And since he's fragile and delicate then being blocked infuriates him.
He tries to 'retaliate'. Year in year out.
Not realizing year in year out that his 'attacks' are pathetic.
He wrongly imagines that others are as fragile as he is.
(from the DSM manual 'delusions if present are transient and not well organized')
Whereas tygxc's delusions seem to be slightly more intricate and particular.
And although also cyclical - better 'organized'.

@14022

"why doesn't the engine know its a draw?"
++ That is another reason why the human is necessary in addition to the computers.
Sveshnikov asked first for good assistants and only then for modern computers to weakly solve chess in 5 years.

@14017

"Chess is essentially a math problem and most math problems are solved through proofs, not through brute force."
++ Allis weakly solved Connect Four with a set of 9 strategic rules.

@14015

"The method for solving in one pass is undefined."
++ Strongly solving is not in 1 pass, it is from 7 men to 8 men, then to 9, to 10... to 32.

@13981

"There are certainly a huge number of positions that cannot be reached in 40 moves"
++ Yes, but then the non transposing branching factor is only 2, or even 1: forced move.
10^38 = 3^80 = 2^126
It is the pigeonhole principle: there are no more chess positions than there are chess positions.

"optimal play can be MUCH slower than co-operative play" ++ No, random play is slower than optimal play. For example the longest possible chess game of 8848.5 moves involves hopping around with knights for 49.5 moves, moving a pawn 1 square, hopping around, moving a pawn 1 square or capturing a nonpawn, hopping around...

"need to evaluate long lines where one person is trying to win and the other is trying to stop them winning" ++ That is exactly what they do in ICCF.
This is the longest game in the ongoing ICCF WC Finals: 73 moves, ending in a 3-fold repetition
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360139

This is the longest game in a human classical world championship match: 136 moves.
In ICCF this would have ended in a 7-men endgame table base draw on move 115.
White won the actual game after a black error due to fatigue and time trouble.

Optimissed what do you think of draws?

You just make up any old fantasy you want to when you can't handle somebody. It's a little sad.

If only you understood what I was saying and why...

Another false narrative.

Page 1 -> MARattigan

You first spoke to Tygxc on Page 3 ...*after* you had posted several other times including jumping on MARattigan. Elroch also posted before you said a word to Tygxc. So your notion that you were just minding your business and having a chat with Tygxc when your "enemies" showed up is pure fiction (I won't call them trolls since you are the troll here). You came to this thread (which was a continuation of other threads which you also were not first to participate in) to stir up trouble, as you always do when you see posters you don't like.

That's correct. O is pathetic and 'loses' every time.
His 'payoff' appears to be that he gets negative attention. Its masochistic.
What would bother O even more - is being ignored.
That would bother tygxc even more too.

In truth, every finite number is TINY compared to just about every finite number.

@14092

"every finite number is TINY compared to just about every finite number"
++ The number of legal chess positions 4.85*10^44 is tiny
compared to the number of ways to shuffle a deck of 52 playing cards: 52! = 8*10^67.

How do we have the number of legal chess positions?

Chess can't be solved because the number of possible chess games is higher than the number of atoms in the universe

Tromp has the most accurate estimate here.

But it's only for basic rules (no account of 50 move or triple repetition rules).

Nobody has attempted an answer for competition rules, but it's VASTLY bigger (vastly bigger also than the number of ways of shuffling a deck of 52 playing cards).

@tygxc finds it more convenient to overlook the difference.

@14096

"Tromp has the most accurate estimate here."
++ Yes. 4.85*10^44 legal positions,
but 99.95% of these have 3 to 16 promotions to pieces not previously captured,
and 9 promotions to pieces not previously captured are counted most.
As the 3 random samples displayed in the link show:
they contain several underpromotions to rooks and or bishops from both sides,
and thus cannot result from optimal play by both sides,
as underpromotion to a rook or bishop only makes sense to avoid a draw by stalemate,
and it cannot be optimal play for both sides to avoid stalemate.

A more reasonable estimate is 3*10^37 positions from 1 box of 32 chess men per this scientific paper.
It can be upped to 3.28 * 10^38 to include positions with 3 or 4 queens,
i.e. positions from 1 luxury box of 34 chess men: 32 plus a spare queen for both colors.

"@tygxc finds it more convenient to overlook the difference."
++ No. I adhere to the definition of a position according to 9.2.3

And here is another example of @tygxc stating a falsehood that has already been pointed out.

He starts by suggesting ignoring 1999 out of 2000 positions with 3 or more promotions to pieces not previously captured can be ignored. This is absurd given that such positions even occur in the tiny master game database comprising less than 1 billion positions, a minuscule fraction of his own underestimate of the positions needed to solve chess.

So not only is the reduction absurd based on the data, it forgets that you don't find extremes in a tiny sample (like a billion positions). I feel here, @tygxc is genuinely deluded, confusing the fact that small samples can be good for estimating averages and not understanding that this does not extend to extremes (because extremes occur in such a small fraction of the data - there could even be just one example!) that they are not going to be visible in small samples at all.

And then, having wrongly argued for a 2000-fold reduction in the number of positions, he says to ignore 1999 in each 1000 of those positions by ignoring his previous reduction and using a position count for a game like chess where promotion to pieces not previously captured (an entirely arbitrary restriction on legal moves with no logical basis) is entirely illegal.

Counting is important. Being honest is too. Improvement is needed on both.