Chess will never be solved, here's why

tygxc is also beating around the bush of the fact that he assumes perfect pruning but only attirbutes one node per position.

tygxc knows he can get away with almost anything by simply stopping it for a while and then re-asserting it again later.
He claims others 'don't understand' but knows he's being phony on that.
So far he still doesn't go to Optimissed's pathetic narcissism tactics but almost nobody does.
MEGA - notice that tygxc suddenly almost dramatically stopped pushing the 114 games for now after it was suggested that the games are 'suspect' including the possibility that the engines were phonily set to not play for the win properly and instead play for the draw?
He seemed to drop it like it was a Hot Stone.

no hes still randomly claiming they're perfect when its convenient for him, and he'l make the same fallacies in trying to justify that claim in due time.

do you have a math degree?

OK. randomly. But much less than before.
I agree on the 'convenient'. Tactically convenient.
And correct about 'same fallacies'.
When not selling the Snake Oil - pushes the Moon Rocks.
But he's operating in a much more obscure area than ExWA is.
Like a choirboy compared to EW and EE.

@12004

"the average number of promotions to pieces not previously captured in a legal chess position is 9" ++ It is the modal number.

"Tromp points out that there are ~10^41 positions with 2 or fewer promotions t pieces not previously captured. (0.05% of 4.6x10^44)" ++ And most of these are underpromotions.

"a pair of strategies to weak solve chess contain massively fewer positions, just like the pair of strategies to weak solve checkers only contained ~10^14 positions." ++ Yes. For chess it is 10^17. Chess engines are more efficient than Chinook was and thus can come closer to perfect alpha-beta pruning. Chess is also easier to prune than Checkers.

"guessing it suffices, rather than PROVING it" ++ No need to prove an estimate.
The estimate 3*10^37 * 10.9456 = 3.28 * 10^38 is sufficiently accurate.

"Tromp showed there were 10^41 positions with 2 or fewer promotions to pieces not previously captured" ++ Including underpromotions. The 3.28 *10^38 includes 1-2 promotions to queens not previously captured.

tygxc's ability to understand rigour in math appears to be in rigor mortis.
And yes 'any dent'.
You worded it better than I.

except for the paper where that figure comes from EXPLICITLY STATES NO PROMOTIONS OF ANY TYPE.

you either do not even READ the papers you cite or you are Lying through your teeth.

this fact has been pointed out to your repeatedly, [Removed: Offensive] ~W

since you masquerade as neither, you disgust me.

except for many of the steps in your 'estimate' are derived of steps in your "solution", of which must be proven to be rigorous. you do not make any such proof, in fact literal mathematicians agree that your "logic" is delusional.

my bio is legendary. lmao 🤣🤣

To come back to the double error probability
P(double error)
= P (A errs & B misses the win)
= P (A errs) * P (B misses the win | A has erred)
< P (A errs) * P (A errs)
= P² (A errs)
= P² (single error).

P (B misses the win | A has erred) < P(A errs)
for 2 reasons:

1. B has more information: he sees the move played by A and thus looks 1 ply deeper
2. The error by A is more likely to result from a short thinking time 2-5 days/move instead of a long thinking time 5-10 days/move. B is more likely to spend a normal or long thinking time 5-10 days/move when B suspects an error by A, e.g. when the move A played is not the move B expected. B is thus more likely to spot the error by A than A is to make the error.

That's unfair.

The paper explicitly states no promotions of any type, but if you look through the content that is not what is calculated. It's the statement that is at fault.

As I mentioned before, diagrams such as this are included in the count, where there must have been promotions.

On the other hand the paper is correct in stating diagrams. No side to move etc. @tygxc has arbitrarily multiplied by 10 to account for

a factor of 2 for side to move

a factor of 100 to include ply count

a factor which could be determined by reworking the figures in the paper, but hasn't been, for the addition of up to two queens

All of which would be necessary (if not sufficient) to support his argument.

But the main problem is he doesn't actually have an argument. He's consistently declined to post a flowchart or pseudocode or some exact description of the method he proposes, but he has explicitly stated that he doesn't intend to include the majority of lines in whatever he might finish up with, so regardless of how long it might take it wouldn't be a solution in any normal sense.

the paper is calculated as an estimate for no promotions of any type. just because a position goes through the cracks doesnt change the purpose of the calculations. changing the statement changes the calculations to be done, many of which fall outside of the previously eliminated positions.

Ur giving wayyyyy to much credit to tygxc here.

@12031

"The paper explicitly states no promotions of any type, but if you look through the content that is not what is calculated. It's the statement that is at fault."
++ No promotions in the title is just short for no promotions to pieces not previously captured

"diagrams such as this are included in the count, where there must have been promotions"
++ Yes, also generally it is impossible to tell if a piece is original or promoted.

"On the other hand the paper is correct in stating diagrams. No side to move etc."
++ Tromp does the same and multiplies by 2 for diagrams to positions, which is correct except when a king is in check.

"@tygxc has arbitrarily multiplied by 10" ++ Not arbitrarily, but 10.9456.

"to account for a factor of 2 for side to move"
++ No, that factor 2 of diagrams to positions is undone by the factor 1/2 for diagrams to nodes, except when a position is up/down symmetrical.

"a factor which could be determined by reworking the figures in the paper for the addition of up to two queens" ++ That is exactly what I did.

A factor 3.8E41 / 1.9E40/4 for = 4.97 for 1 extra queen
A factor 3.6E42/ 1.9E40/4/4/2 = 5.97 for 2 extra queens, one white, one black
Total factor 4.97 + 5.97 = 10.95

"exact description of the method he proposes"
ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 servers, average 5 days/ply

"doesn't intend to include the majority of lines" ++ Some lines can be dismissed right away because of game knowledge and logic, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1. The former is sure to lose, the latter might still draw, but does not even try to win and is thus logically inferior.
'Chess is a generalised trade' - Botvinnik
You can trade material, time, and position,
but giving away material, time, or position for no return can be dismissed right away.

"how long it might take"
++ ICCF WC33 Finals started 20 July 2022 and still 22 games are ongoing, 114 ended in draws.

"a solution in any normal sense" ++ It is a weak solution: it shows how to draw.
It is redundant and thus fail safe, but not yet complete.

++ No promotions in the title is just short for no promotions to pieces not previously captured

except for where the calculations done in the paper disagree with you.

""exact description of the method he proposes"
ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 servers, average 5 days/ply"

thats not the calculations u make. you give only 1 node per position on the tree. a ply includes imperfect moves by definition and in programming.

" ++ Some lines can be dismissed right away because of game knowledge and logic, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1. The former is sure to lose, the latter might still draw, but does not even try to win and is thus logically inferior."

claiming something is true isnt logic lmfao. you just assume its true based on rules of thumb. and you are repeatedly asked to actually provide a logical justification behind these claims, but you refuse to, because you have no conception of rigorous logic.

"'Chess is a generalised trade' - Botvinnik
You can trade material, time, and position,
but giving away material, time, or position for no return can be dismissed right away."

actually none of those are proven invariants to the game state, and by definition cannot be dismissed. how weak minded do you have to be to claim that you are giving away "position" (which is based on evaluation) and then claim that its logic and not evaluation???

plus the definition of a weak solution means that nothing can be dismissed.

"a solution in any normal sense" ++ It is a weak solution: it shows how to draw."

its not a proof, so it isnt a solution.

all of this has been repeated to you many times tygxc.

"P (A errs) * P (A errs)"

First off can you explain probability of which event is this supposed to represent?

"B has more information: he sees the move played by A and thus looks 1 ply deeper"

Yes we discussed this. If we simplify the event of error made by the engine it is due to lack of depth by x plies. What you are saying is that after the move was made, engines of both players would suddenly change evaluation after reaching appropriate depth.

I would argue that the range is large and on average the lack of depth is more than 1-2 ply, thus it most of the time wouldn't make a difference.

"B is more likely to spend a normal or long thinking time 5-10 days/move when B suspects an error by A"

This is getting very speculative but errors suspected initially would very rarely happen, rather they would run into the error when appropriate depth is reached by the engine, assuming they let it run that far.

To really comment on this specifically would need to see some data on their time usage, do they run into time trouble or how often they deviate from the usual time usage. My assumption is that Grischuk like bad time usage is rare.

In general it's hard to say if vast majority of errors happen outside of current engines capabilities regardless of the think time - We certainly can't prove they don't.

@tygxc your waffling doesnt change the fact that you cant treat the errors as independent.

you just choose to ignore the lines where neither A or B see the winning line. this has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

you try to hide it under layers upon layers of fallacies but they are all just that, fallacies.

for example - ". B is more likely to spend a normal or long thinking time 5-10 days/move when B suspects an error by A"

why tf would B suspect an error from A, when A had no reason to suspect it was an error even at several days thinking time?

"e.g. when the move A played is not the move B expected." is literally just equivalent to an assumption that the errors are independent. why would B expect anything but the move that A plays, especially when at that time B has had less ply of depth.

you completely ignore the reason why A erred in the first place: The move/error was out of the depth of computation. "B is more likely to spend a normal or long thinking time 5-10 days/move when B suspects an error by A," doesnt apply because B would have no reason to suspect an error out of the depth of computation.

@12035

"probability of which event"
P(A errs) is the probability that player A makes an error.
P (double error) is the probability that A makes an error and B missed the win.

"lack of depth is more than 1-2 ply, thus it most of the time wouldn't make a difference"
++ I say 
P (B misses the win | A has erred) < P(A errs)
but the difference may not be large.

"errors suspected initially would very rarely happen" ++ They keep a record of prior analysis. Whenever a player plays a move less expected, there is reason to think longer.

"some data on their time usage"
++ 'I never take fewer than two days and often as many as 10.' - Edwards

"do they run into time trouble"
++ Yes, it happens they use up all 50 days/10 moves and then have to reply the same day.

"My assumption is that Grischuk like bad time usage is rare." ++ It happens. If you want to outthink your opponent and his engines, then you have to spend more time than he does.

"if vast majority of errors happen out of current engines capabilities"
++ The vast majority of errors happens from human factors: dubious opening selection, hasty move, clerical error, illness... This is clear from inspection of decisive games in previous years.

What this forum has turned to? We only here to discuss if chess is solvable or not. I lost track of this discussion. Wish the forum has a better future.