Chess will never be solved, here's why

@8664

"the mistakes are smaller"
++ There are no smaller mistakes. Per GM Hübner:
A mistake (?) is a move that either changes a drawing position to a losing position,
or a winning position back to a drawing position a.k.a. missed win.
A blunder or double mistake (??) is a move that changes a winning position to a losing position.

@8675

"these engines are just reallly strong"
++ ICCF (grand)master + engines at average 5 days/move
are much stronger than engines running unjockeyed,
and these are much stronger than the strongest humans at 3 minutes/move.

As for the latter, consider the 2024 Toronto Candidates' Tournament.
Out of 56 games there were 25 decisive games.
Fitting a Poisson distribution of the errors/game leads to a distribution:

• 0 error: 18 games
• 1 error: 21 games
• 2 errors: 12 games
• 3 errors: 4 games
• 4 errors: 1 game
  The average is 1.1 error/game.

Given that ICCF (grand)master + engines at 5 days / move >> human at 3 min / move
this makes it plausible that 106 draws out of 106 games indeed means 0 error / drawn game,
i.e. an error distribution of 106 - 0 - 0 - 0.

Wrong.
Mistakes can be smaller or larger.
And are.
A mistake that drops a queen will so often be game-deciding.
A mistake that drops a pawn will often not be game-deciding.
Of course mistakes aren't binary.
But tygxc is like a determined defense lawyer.
But there's a 'rub'.
He's like his own jury - he 'plays' that jury.
Since he's his own jury - then in his mind - he always wins.
But its inoccuous I'd say.
Not grandiose. Not psychotic. Not even personality disorder level.
He just disagrees. Proves he can do so without trolling.
---------------------------------
Whereas the muted guy ... totally different situation. The O-person.

@8684

"thats not how proof works"
++ That is how proof works.
Observed fact: 106 draws out of 106 games in the strongest chess on the planet.
Several ways to draw for black against whatever white tries.
Explanation: error / game distribution 106 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0.
Alternative explanation: 105 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0.
Even with the alternative explanation chess is still a draw and 105 games are perfect games, because there are ways for black to draw besides the one in the game with 2 errors.

@8690

"A mistake that drops a pawn will often not be game-deciding."
++ It is game deciding, certainly in ICCF correspondence World Championship Finals.

there's no 'certainly' ...
and haven't you already said they were all draws?
Are you contradicting yourself again tygxc?
Tsk tsk tsk.
See ya next time Good Sir.

@8687

"Where's tygxc's evidence that that doesn't continue?"
++ The evidence is that in ICCF WC Finals each year there are fewer and fewer decisive games and now none.

@8693

"haven't you already said they were all draws?"
++ Now 106 draws out of 106 games. In previous years there were decisive games, every year fewer. Nobody blunders a pawn in ICCF WC Finals. If they do, then they resign right away.

And every theorem in the mathematical sciences (including computer science and game theory) has NO uncertainty.

Not very good evidence for stats... Since a draw is alot easier than finding a winning position

Like I could draw again a gm anyday but winning unless they get greedy almost impossible at my current level maybe you might have evidence once stockfish 20 comesout we should wait until engines are stronger

""these engines are just reallly strong"
++ ICCF (grand)master + engines at average 5 days/move
are much stronger than engines running unjockeyed,
and these are much stronger than the strongest humans at 3 minutes/move."

so what you are telling me is "these engines are just reallly strong"

thats all.

"++ The evidence is that in ICCF WC Finals each year there are fewer and fewer decisive games and now none."

thats not evidence though. all that tells us is that it is likely that those computers will continue to draw in the future.

that means nothing as to solving chess. we already know the extreme likelihood of chess being a draw. the ICCF doesnt change it.

proof is direct deduction using only axioms. by definition "alternative explanation"s immediately disqualify what you claim as proof. any highschooler could tell you that. an advanced middle schooler would laugh at you.

you still havent given your math education btw.

Yup just take ap stats and the kids would all be like uhhhh what is this(literally me right now )

@tygxc is correct from the point of view of an oracle, like a 32 piece tablebase. The problem is that we don't have access to an oracle, and he thinks a feeble approximation must be good enough without any good reason.

Remember that having 106 draws is not even good evidence we won't see a win in the next 106 games.

It's worth observing that the ICCF games give a very skewed view because they always compare the current best engine to itself. If instead you compare the 2024 best engine to the 2019 best engine it will win some games - it has a higher rating. Likewise, it is likely that if you play the 2029 best engine against the 2024 best engine, it will win some games, despite the 2024 best engine getting 106 draws against itself.

Stockfish has improved by over 800 points in the last 10 years

One thing that has slipped my mind is that maybe tygxc is so far behind that he doesnt know what he's arguing against anymore.

It's been demonstrated before that analogies and arguments will go completely over his head, so why not the discussion as a whole?

But it is funny that tygxc goes like "this is proof" and then proceeds to not even provide a QED.

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between a proof in the mathematical sciences and a scientific fact.

He referred to the uncertain predictions of quantum mechanics, without realising this is not a valid analogy, and that an appropriate analogy to solving chess would be the proving of a theorem about the mathematical model used by quantum mechanics, using deduction. For example, that Fourier theory implies the Uncertainty Principle for momentum and position.

2000 posts of just optimized wow lol yes a yapper

thats what ive noticed too. that's why ive been asking for his math education. he wouldnt make it through even an intermediate proof class.

@8694

"these engines are just reallly strong"
++ Those ICCF (grand)masters + engines are much stronger than the strongest humans.
The strongest humans arrived at 1.1 error/game average.
So it is plausible that the ICCF (grand)masters + engines do better: now 0 error/game:
106 draws out of 106 games.