Chess will never be solved, here's why

.

Going back a few years, we went over it semi-rigorously and there was a general disagreement with tygxc regarding that. I did my own calculations and was getting numbers a few orders of magnitude higher than others disagreeing with tygxc but it's his opinion and you've mentioned that you disagree with it enough times for it to be clear. Some of us have been disagreeing with it for years and years. It isn't important and there's no need to repeatedly point it out.

tygxc does have some opinions which are legitimate and which disagree with the consensus of the mathematics department on this thread. The compelling nature of the now apparently 108 draws is one such.

In my opinion, the mathematics department isn't being constructive. There's not even a possible, projected method available for solving chess in a deductive fashion. There's no real prospect of it ever being available, using the "brute force method" which seems to be preferred. Too many lines, too much time needed, too little storage and difficulties of accessing and compiling or assimilating the results into a useful or legible form.

At the end of that, in the unlikely case that it's successful, it still doesn't provide a deductive proof, since too many things could have gone wrong. A glitch somewhere that will never be found, an error in the programming, a retrieval error, a logical error in programming strategy and even the possibility of deliberate interference all mean that it still couldn't be taken as definite, whatever the result seemed to be. It wouldn't form a deductive proof.

This means that the general strategy tygxc is discussing is likely to be the best available and it's likely we are getting meaningful results but it isn't certain. There seems to be one massive flaw and that is that they are treating the games as human-like and yet there is overwhelming evidence from perhaps billions of games played by humans and by engines in a human-like manner that if there IS a forced win for either side from the starting position, it won't exist in human-like games, which tend to have a maximum of around 100 moves.

The reality may be that a different strategy should be tried. That is to treat EVERY pawn advance or capture as a potential error and if a pawn has to be moved, to give priority to single square moves. To keep pawn moves in reserve, as one does when playing for a win in an ending. You don't push pawns, except for development of pieces, to command or occupy important squares or when they constitute a real threat or are a decoy.

So if this is good thinking, it puts real knowledge as far away as ever. Personally I am convinced that chess IS drawn because it's so complex and so virtually endless that I believe it's almost definite that either side has an antidote to what the other side tries to do. However, a deductively sound or syllogistic solution for chess is almost certainly impossible, as many others, passing through, have mentioned.

It means that if the mathematics department sees futility in tygxc's beliefs on this subject, their own ideas are equally likely to be futile. All we can manage is to get a pragmatically, highly probable or more or less certain solution and we already have that. Nothing else is or will be available.

^^ Show this to your maths professors and dozens of maths majors if you like and see what they think.

Someone actually accused me of down voting because someone else down voted all the comments even tho I didn't lol

I be tired is tygxc though because it happens on other threads for me it is like 50/50

You would need to be watchful and alert. You would also need to try to be objective. That's the big problem.

Objectivity is never a given state of affairs. It always consists of an attempt to be objective. It can consist of nothing more, since objectivity, not being a state of affairs, is an attitude of mind.

Given that I might not play your games: 2+2 =3. That's a known fact. I know it and it's three when I want it to be. Do you understand? Objectivity requires complete honesty and sincerity but more than that too.

I wonder. Might it be NOT programmed as a teaching method? I take it you're talking about the engine here? I expect there will be versions of SF that have been shown how to do it.

I don't program and have no intention atm of learning up-to-date programming. I was fine with compileable BASIC dialects and if I needed some programming, I'd ask my son. C.c could possibly hire him but he'd be quite expensive, I expect. I knew one guy who was charging £800 an hour in the early 1990s for sort of blue chip companies' front ends and web-site structure.

how much time do you spend writing all of this?

ask DDue. hed be the one to ans this.

This is for optimissed not you lmao

i know right BC665 ?...3rd ppl in are such wimps !

heres another ex..."Only according to yourself." (Doofus DDue)

Yes hamster's a Doofus. Been one as looooong as I can remember.

Am I third in?

huh ??...no not at all Opti. u fight like a guy would-should imo .

A whole week, huh?

There's not a shred of anything in that diatribe to warrant showing to anyone in mathematics. There's two numbers, 108 and 100, neither of which are used in any way a 9 year old couldn't understand.

Meanwhile, the end result of your long, meandering journey is that your answer to the subject line of this thread is effectively "Yes, chess will never be solved.".

Go back a page, skim the posts for length and who made them, and ponder why your assertion makes no sense. Your patriarchal Don Quixote has the longest post by a country mile. Now go back several weeks...you will find I am well behind a handful of posters in terms of lengthy posts. In fact, your erstwhile hero has been complaining about it, that I am not talking on topic.

You two never are much for logic, and just grab whatever insulting assertion is closest to hand, whether believable or not.

I know I'm clever and completely off your radar but you come across as a lot duller than average. If you didn't pretend you knew everything, you could come over as average or even average to bright. If you tried hard.

Dio uses bigger words than you do

Yes but you post nothing but drivel and personal attacks. You aren't even capable of working out why that long post I made, which probably took me at least 25 minutes, is completely on topic. Honestly, anyone with any brains is going to laugh at you and nothing other than that.. They'll see you aren't worth arguing with.

I know. He's good verbally but he does try to show off so a lot of his writing comes across as really ponderous and rather ridiculous.

The fact that you think that diatribe was worth showing to anyone in any academic or professional setting just highlights how utterly incapable of judging such things you are. You don't know what clever is, and you don't know what brightness is, you only know whether people agree with you or not.

He also misuses words because he writes words for effect rather than meaning, such as "diatribe" and "meandering", whereas to a person with only a moderate amount of IQ my post is complex makes a very good case as to why the maths bunch are wong to persecute tygxc so much, since their ideas are even more unworkable.

You use small words against big words

Kinda silly when you try to trash talk with small brain comments right ?

Pretty much everyone can see that you're both incompetent and also jealous because you can't compete with me in brains or good looks. It's actually hard to think of a more ridiculous hamster on the entire site.