Chess will never be solved, here's why

MEGA - I experienced that kind of thing with tygxc 2 years ago ... so did others.
then I realized I didn't have time for this forum anyway and was gone for more than a year.
How do I have time for it now?
Well I quit a whole bunch of the clubs here.
The net result was I spend less time on the website but have a little more time for some public forums.
MEGA - you realize that regarding tygxc it could be exactly the same two years from now in the future?
Including drawn matches with engines?
They're unlikely to include today's engines.
It'll be 2026 engines against each other - with or without GM's included.
Drawing each other.
----------------------------------
Can you see tygxc now on that?
When I resumed in this forum some weeks ago - I already knew what was coming but I had a modified approach to it.

MEGA
Lol ! He's going to most ignore those postings that most refute!
You don't promote the prosecution's evidence and exhibits to the Jury!
Its like a lawyer thing. You must protect your Client.

oh yeah you are completely right, its a personal flaw of mine that I cant tear myself away from conversations where people are being intellectually dishonest.

perhaps this forum is an opportunity for growth, but at the same time theres that nag to correct whatever BS tygxc posts.

MEGA - another idea is not to directly engage with the person being intellectually dishonest or deficient or much too stubborn.
While still being in the conversation.
I often skip as soon as I see an invalid premise.
Would you care to quote that post with the four items in it?
Maybe some others might look.
////////////////////////////////////////////////
I saw many of your posts but I'm not sure I could find the one you mean.
Or the multiple posts you're specifying.
The postings here caused me to compare the Binomial theoreom (Newton's version from 1665 - my favorite from long ago with the factorials on the bottom) with the Poisson - Fourier - Laplace developments.
If I had time - I'd go into heavy re-study of that - and related.
And Maxwell's equations.
Math can be beautiful.
But - the time isn't there. Not for me.
For the younger people here - well I imagine they're getting paid for proficiency in such things. At least indirectly. Some of them.

here

Thanks MEGA.
'Nodes per second' is ridiculous when its considered that some 'nodes' are so much more difficult than others. Its a breeding ground for disinformation.
The initial grand position with 32 pieces is a 'node'?
------------------------
The conversation just now caused me to do a little research on Laplace.
Which is pronounced laPlass.

Pierre Simon Laplace is one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians.
In the French revolution - he survived where Lavoisier and five other scientists did not. He did work with Lavoisier though.
Over 16,000 french nobles were executed. 
Including Queen Marie de Antoinette in 1793.
Apparently Laplace wasn't in Paris at the time.
That helped it seems.
Ironically - Robespierre the man in power - was executed the next year in 1794.

The revolution started in 1789 and that era ended ten years later when Napoleon did a coup in 1799.
Laplace apparently knew how to 'interact' with Napoleon.
He voted against Napoleon in 1814 but it seems he wasn't in Paris at the time?
Napoleon lost forever - at Waterloo the next year.
Laplace was made a marquis in 1817 - 'restoration of the Bourbons'.

Point: Laplace was great. 
He put mathematical probability theory into establishment.
Does our 'solving' discussion relate to probability?
Not exactly.
But when you're using 'weakly solving' terminology - it seems to become somewhat relevant.
Also from Laplace:
"If man were restricted to collecting facts the sciences were only a sterile nomenclature and he would never have known the great laws of nature. It is in comparing the phenomena with each other, in seeking to grasp their relationships, that he is led to discover these laws..."
'were restricted' seems to connect with how science deniers operate.
'sterile nomenclature' - often plays into the hands of deniers.
'Comparing the phenomena, in seeking to grasp their relationships ...'
Yes !! There it is. Something the deniers just don't get.
But that's the kind of attitude that made people like Laplace and Einstein great.
----------------------------------------------
"Applying quantitative methods to a comparison of living and nonliving systems, Laplace and the chemist Antoine Lavoisier in 1780, with the aid of an ice calorimeter that they had invented, showed respiration to be a form of combustion."
"Pierre-Simon Laplace proved the stability of the solar system. In analysis Laplace introduced the potential function and Laplace coefficients. He also put the theory of mathematical probability on a sound footing."

MEGA I do appreciate it. I added my research about Laplace to my previous post.
All of these postings of your's and others ...
well nowadays its usually so easy to get information as compared to the days when I was a student - before the internet even existed.
One can look up about Laplace - Bayes - Poisson - Fourier and so on with rachmaninoff and grieg and the like playing in the background.
People nowadays probably take it for granted ...

@11463

"An error distribution of e.g. 70 - 0 - 37 - 0 - 0 is not plausible:" "because you dont like it?"
++ Because that would require all errors to come in pairs.
There could be reasons for some errors to come in pairs, but not all errors.

It is not plausible that there would be 37 games with 2 errors and none with 1 or 3 errors.

The error distribution must be 107 - 0 - 0 - 0, or maybe 106 - 0 - 1, or 105 - 0 - 2.
Thus we have over 100 perfect games with no errors and Chess is a draw.

Stats nerd vs ego who will win

Apparently the ego I guess even though the stats nerd is right

It's still a stalemate for now

I haven't looked too hard at the comments but in general it's clear that the mathematics based element is mistaken.

Actually, most of the arguments I've seen here are interpretational, in that since chess hasn't been solved, there cannot be any accurate portrayal of stats regarding errors (or good play) in practical games. All told, although tygxc has made some mistakes in the past, mistakes have also been made by the maths side. Neither side has a tendency to admit their errors but tygxc has moved noticeably in his analysis and is definitely winning this discussion, give or take mistakes made by BOTH sides.

The reason is that the maths based arguments may SOUND "expert" to some; but since chess hasn't been solved or represented accurately in terms of maths equations, they are mere guesses and can be no more than that. On the other hand, the **scientifically based** investigation can only be via whatever expertise has been accumulated and that is mainly in the form of the tests that tygxc keeps mentioning. They are actually the nearest thing we have to accuracy. We cannot base guesses on a pie-in-the-sky claim that mathematicians can solve this, whilst entirely ignoring the only scientific investigation we're capable of making.

Hi, you seem to follow a basic strategy of calling your beliefs "facts" and claiming that others you're disagreeing with never understand anything. I wonder how successful that strategy is going to be in making the case you wish to make.

It's completely true that errors were made, in the past, by construing nodes as analysed positions. Years ago, I simply couldn't understand this, nor understand why such a simple error was being repeated almost constantly and certainly, tygxc was not the only one guilty of this mistake. The maths crew aren't going to like this but I was the first one to very clearly point it out on this or related threads. Of course, it's something that's always going to be denied by the egos.

Incidentally, it isn't egotistic to be intelligent and sometimes it can be necessary to point out a few related or background facts to others, just as you yourself do. The reason I want to make this comment to you is that I'm having difficulty with <<2. the fact that ive brought your "arguments" up to dozens of math majors/professionals and all of them agreed with me that you are crazy and all>>.

I don't see how they could have fixed so clearly on ty's occsasional errors and missed those made by, say, Elroch. Even granted an extreme, hypothetical case where Elroch has made zero errors in this thread, someone very familiar with mathematics and with nothing to prove would surely understand WHY ty may have made some mistakes, IF he has made any recently. I wouldn't know .... I'm not discussing specifics but merely the general case that **one** maths professional probably isn't going to judge someone to be crazy if they made an error in maths. The idea that "dozens" of maths majors etc (meaning someone with as much mathematical knowledge as, for instance, me, since maths counts as a major subject within Mechanical Engineering, which I studied at degree level) should almost unanimously condemn someone without even being able to understand their reasoning and explain it to you seems to challenge my imagination somewhat.

There was a time when a 3200-rated engine was viewed as almost perfect. So strong it could wipe out a human world champion winning most games (if one was so unwise as to play it - remember Deeper Blue was probably a few hundred points weaker than this). Such engines lose the large majority of games they play against a top engine today.

Just as clear, in fact, as it should have been to you, when you "corrected" my correct statement regarding error distribution, that you were referring to the wrong post?

I don't think you have a leg to stand on and also, I think that Megachess just MIGHT be able to answer for himself and shouldn't need you to stick up for him. Do you believe that it's possible he can answer for himself or am I mistaken on that score too?

You're right, I've been making that argument for ages. Makes better logical sense.

Regarding the strategy stealing arguments, I would suggest that it is intuitively clear that they must count for nothing in a game so complex as chess. If it can be stolen by one side it can be stolen by the other and all it really consists of is transpositional strategy.

It IS transpositional strategy and there's no need to introduce Games Theory terminology where it's only going to cause confusion. There's no need for the argument that chess is drawn by good play on either side to rely on this kind of foreign, deliberately and deceptively specialised terminology, since "strategy stealing" is merely transpositional strategy.

Chess is drawn by good play on either side and that is as obvious as the fact that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white. Anyone doubting that is probably not a competent chess player. Those insisting that it cannot be shown to be winning for black should explain at what point they think such a simple mistake IS losing. Then, working backwards, it will be seen that there are undoubtedly errors which may or may not be losing and which are the correct fare for discussions regarding losing errors.