Chess will never be solved, here's why

AND he's got a big red telephone.

The problem with this is it casts doubt on the games themselves.

How can we look at the tournament results and declare, "See the number of draws? This proves something about the nature of chess" - when some of the participants are, apparently, deliberately seeking such draws?

Risk mitigation appears to be tainting the evidence. We cannot declare that this is the strongest chess available, when some of the participants appear to be purposefully ending their games early.

This is the problem with having humans as part of the equation - they are, naturally, going to place their tournament standing as a priority, and will use individual games as a means to that end.

If we're seeking the objective truth about chess, we need to use evidence in which tournament strategy isn't a factor ...

Yes. Red telephone. but its a small phone.

Downvoting my comment doesn't refute the point, sorry. That'd be nice if it did, though; debates sure would be easier.

Simply put, these ICCF games aren't a reliable measure. One 15-move draw has laid waste to the argument that it's the strongest chess on the planet. Some of these competitors aren't playing to win - they're simply trying to draw.

Better evidence would be, perhaps, having a tournament between top engines with their contempt-for-draw parameters set to the maximum. If, given these settings, the engines still end up drawing all their games, that'd be far more convincing ...

there is no correct debate. tygxc is rejecting basic mathematical principles masked in fancy language and long tangent, and people are reacting to his fallacious tangents- tygxc considers a high probability to be mathematical proof.

none of those iccf games mean anything without proof, and tygxc refuses to understand that.

tygxc, your fantasy has been debunked by multiple mathematicians, when will you admit being wrong?

you still use the wrong definition for a game solution fyi, why arent you addressing this?

I don't think it would be 'convincing'.
It would still reflect programming.
Can computers be programmed to 'play for the win' and 'play for the draw' the way humans do?
Computers are limited - and 'adding a human' does not 'correct' those limitations.
The programmers might have to discard so much of previous programming.
A whole new approach needed for games between computers to have any validity ...
For example - three sets of number evaluations instead of one.
1) evaluation of position regarding winning chances
2) evaluation of position regarding drawing chances
3) evaluation of position regarding losing chances.
Complicated?
Sure it is. Chess wan't built to be simple.
that second one has 'internal complications'
the computer would be evaluating its own drawing chances
and - the opponent's drawing chances too.
When humans play - they don't always know whether their opponent is prioritizing winning or drawing.
Computers playing each other - with similiar programming.
Suspect.
Playing each other at the same rating level - 
Even more suspect.

We can consider from multiple sides of the issue - tygxc can only consider from Sveshnikov's position.

not even sveshnikov, tygxc doesnt understand the context that sveshnikoc was even talking about.

there are particular quotes from Sveshnikov.
But MEGA if you have additional insight into tygxc's misinterpretations on that point (and I think you do) well - well-spotted.
Marattigan also doing a great job of dissecting and refuting tygxc's false claims - in a recent long post.
Should I call them hammer blows or swordstrikes or slicing scalpel cuts?
'surgical strikes' looks appropriate.
tygxc is so much like EE and ExWA and IPG though ...
he's stronger within himself than those three though.

@12159

"One 15-move draw has laid waste to the argument that it's the strongest chess on the planet."
++ No. It is only one game. I see no fault. An average game lasts 40 moves.
It is still the strongest chess on the planet.
human + engine > engine > human
5 days/move > 3 minutes/move
ICCF WC Finals > TCEC Superfinals > Human classical World Championship Match

"Some of these competitors aren't playing to win - they're simply trying to draw."
++ They all play to win: it is their chance to become World Champion.
They need only win 2 games to become World Champion.

"having a tournament between top engines with their contempt-for-draw parameters set to the maximum." ++ That already exists: TCEC Superfinals.
They have to impose 50 slightly dubious openings to prevent all draws.

"the engines still end up drawing all their games"
++ TCEC Superfinals would be all draws if openings were not imposed.

@12157

"See the number of draws? This proves something about the nature of chess" ++ It is the number of decisive games going down every year and now having reached zero: pertfect play.

"when some of the participants are, apparently, deliberately seeking such draws?"
++ I do not think they seek draws: they play sharp stuff: Najdorf, Catalan... Dronov said he plays to win regardless if white or black.

"Risk mitigation appears to be tainting the evidence." ++ Of course they avoid to lose.
In previous years some losses were due to unsound openings.

"We cannot declare that this is the strongest chess available" ++ It is.

"some of the participants appear to be purposefully ending their games early"
++ The shortest game is the shortest game. That is no proof of mutulal intent to draw.

"they are, naturally, going to place their tournament standing as a priority"
++ They aim to win 2 games and become World Champion.

"use evidence in which tournament strategy isn't a factor"
++ Tournament strategy is to win 2 games and lose none.
Tournament strategy is the same now as in the previous years, but then there were decisive games, every year fewer.

wow tygxc, great job posting about iccf, a tournament that has literally nothing to do with solving chess.

solving chess or any game with perfect information) is using game trees and invariant proofs. not some games you think are strong.

@tygxc great job dodging your core fallacies!

It's similar in length and intention to the Berlin draw - players use such lines as an unspoken agreement: "Let's draw this game quickly to mutually benefit our tournament standings".

Just as in the Berlin draw - White has better tries available. But he chooses not to, as he is content with receiving a half point, instead.

This ICCF player in question also drew a game in 22 moves, and another in 20 moves - each of those games with the White pieces, as well. These appear to be intentionally quick draws, to minimize his risk of losing. Tournament strategy in action.

The point about having strong engines and many days per move is unfortunately negated, if some of the players are intentionally seeking draws. This could imply that they are deliberately stunting their play, in the interest of self-preservation.

Once they see a draw on the horizon - they may steer quickly toward it. This cuts away the potential for deeper attempts at decisive outcomes ...

-- Regarding the TCEC - as far as I know, the engines involved don't have their contempt-for-draw parameters set to maximum. This was my off-the-cuff suggestion ...

i play from afar

yes

''hi''

you seem speechless at my ''amazing answer'' 🙃

it has everything to do with anything