Chess will never be solved, here's why

i think playerafar has definitely gleaned that my personality completely refuses to let me detach myself from situations where someone is being intellectually dishonest.

Yes it does exist.
But my point is that tygxc exploits it.
Does tygxc really have a math degree?
It seems unlikely but its possible.
My point about that is he's neither trying to deny maths logic nor to deny computer science ...
rather he's trying to use some math concepts that are out of context or otherwise misinterpreted by him to distort computer science rather than deny it.
--------------------------------------
One could argue that distortion is denial of the real science - but its not the same.
An example of a ridiculous distortion is 'nodes per second' ...
And yes - tygxc ignores entire posts which are Not trolling posts.
And will use tactics like referring to posts refuting his invalid claims - 
as 'condescending'.
That's a concession and mistake by hiim though.
Perhaps the closest he comes to conceding.
If he says 'condescending' that's his way of conceding that the posts concerned are refuting his posts.
Since he couldn't do better.
Is it similiar to what O does? No.

In another forum - a good poster posted this:
"It is useful to have a foil to motivate enlightened posts."
Yes.

And if I have the meaning of the word 'bump' right in this context - such foils 'bump' forums.
tygxc's posts do seem to be 'good foils' much of the time.
And foils aren't necessarily 'trolling'.

5. The fact no tablebases provide a strong solution of 7 man chess (even for positions without rooks if the rules are FIDE competition or ICCF).

Id be willing to bet $1000 that tygxc does not have a math degree, and is also discussing with the full capabilities of a sound mind.

We know that humans are imperfect and make errors. We know that engines are not perfect, as each generation surpasses the previous one. It is absurd to claim that an ICCF player with a lot of time and different engines to compare cannot err.

It might be that the superior move will not be uncovered until a 2040 engine analyzes the game, much as some of Tal's baffling ploys were considered to be sound until computer programs improved to the point that they spotted adequate resources for his opponents. Unsound moves are unsound whether or not anyone at the time can demonstrate that fact.

Pretty sure that with new AI even the best grand master won't stand a chance.

That was true long before Stockfish NNUE, which was a huge leap forward (inspired by AlphaZero!)

i think its more so that he thought of you as reasonable and was hurt as you continued to point out his false statements and your view of him as similar to the rest of us.

That's why you shouldn't repost a point that's been invalidated by valid rebuttal. That means your point is false and reposting it is counterproductive to what you say is the point of the argument.

If you can't find a flaw in the rebuttal you should have the grace to concede the point or, if that is asking too much, to at least stop posting it.

@tygxc, can I just check something about your mathematical knowledge?

Do you understand that small, strictly positive numbers are not zero? I ask because some of your posts suggest lack of awareness of this. (For example today's #8786)

Are you going to refuse to learn what the word 'rigorous' means as a protest?

Otherwise, a good place to start would be to understand what a rigorous verification of the correctness of a checkmate problem is. You can ignore the possibility of alternate solutions.

MEGA - its possible that tygxc has a kind of math degree - like for example if one has a degree in education to be a schoolteacher - with math credits to go with it.
I simply can't rule out that he has some kind of math credential higher than that too.
Because I don't know how much of his claims he actually believes.
--------------------------------
MEGA you mentioned: "and is also discussing with the full capabilities of a sound mind."
Did you mean 'with' or you actually meant 'without'?
---------------------------------
Regarding our discussions of tygxc and his claims - 
I wonder if he's aware that when somebody pushes claims such as his and pushes them as persistently as he does ...
then people are going to talk about him and his claims - including in the third person.
That's not 'trolling'. That's reaction. 
To me - tygxc looks very very good next to Optimissed.
But almost anybody would.
With Optimissed now muted by chess.com - righteously - tygxc appears to be getting more negative attention than is usual.
But he's held his head up for two years of this.
I imagine he'll continue to do so.

The problem is that egos get in the way of improving understanding. What @tygxc needs is someone who would be a saint and cleverly massage his ego while leading him towards better understanding, starting with understanding the key definitions. I am not such a saint, and I guess his reaction to my bluntness will be to erect further barriers to progress.

The famous early self-help book "How to win friends and influence people" is a great guide to constructively interacting with people (eg it explains how never to tell someone they are wrong, but to change their position by reasoning without confrontation). I can see how the guidance is wise. And I rarely follow it.

He's played too much rapid chess lol

Chess can destroy ego other times it exasperates it

Lol!
@Elroch
I think that tygxc sometimes gets a bad rap and doesn't get enough credit for some things.
He seems to never personally attack.
But he gets rebuke.
Because he tends to discount or ignore the compelling arguments made to him.
But still - he does so much better than some persons.
///////////////////////////////////////////
And you've said that a 'foil' tends to promote comments by those making better arguments and informative comments and better research.
Which is well pointed out by you.
tygxc's 'foil' postings are polite I'd say.
Yes they're stubborn too - he finds a way to combine the two.
It'll be okay.
Because the discussion isn't always about him or his foils.
And he's not looking for any forum to be about him personally -
while we know of a person - now muted by chess.com yet again - who works very hard year in year out on such an errand.
But tygxc is not that person and tygxc's definitely been promoting activity here.
For two years now.

@11449

"We know that humans are imperfect and make errors." ++ Yes

"We know that engines are not perfect, as each generation surpasses the previous one."
++ Yes, each generation makes fewer and fewer mistakes for the same time/move.

"claim that an ICCF player with a lot of time and different engines to compare cannot err."
++ Previous ICCF WC Finals had decisive games, every year fewer.
Example of human error: black presumably thought he already had played ...Nf8.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164303 
Here is a missed tactical shot:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164336

"Tal's baffling ploys were considered to be sound"
++ No. They were considered unsound, but hard to refute over the board with the clock ticking. 'If Tal sacrifices a piece, take it. If Petrosian sacrifices a piece, don’t take it.' - Botvinnik

"Unsound moves are unsound whether or not anyone at the time can demonstrate that fact."
++ Yes. But 107 draws out of 107 games would require all errors to come in pairs.
An error distribution of e.g. 70 - 0 - 37 - 0 - 0 is not plausible: 37 games with 2 errors and 0 with 1 or 3 errors. Each game with 0 error is part of the weak solution of Chess.

The 17 ICCF WC Finalists and their computers are now doing what Sveshnikov predicted:
trace all openings to technical endgames and weakly solve Chess.

Weakly?
How about weekly?

I post 4 examples of tygxc completely and continuously ignoring objective rebuttals to his claims and he ignores the post entirely!

who could have guessed! oh wait, everyone guessed that he would!

"An error distribution of e.g. 70 - 0 - 37 - 0 - 0 is not plausible:"

because you dont like it?

you never justify this.