Chess will never be solved, here's why

@12221

"I only glanced at the one"
++ Here is how it could have led to a 7-men endgame draw if white had chosen the sharp 13 fxe5 instead of taking the repetition 13 Bf1:

Or a later 3-fold repetition:

wow a single line, what about the other trillion variations?

basic math proof eludes you.

again, why are you going off on the iccf tangent that has nothing to do with solving chess?

This game proves chess is a draw. I am 99.99999% sure the play is perfect (there's a little doubt about the draw offer, and a smaller amount about its acceptance).

"u know there is always a draw when none make mistakes...that's a fact and no one can change that."
Its not a fact and is wrong in two ways.
First its never been proved.
Second - you can't know there's 'no mistakes'.
For a specific reason - chess hasn't been solved.
Which tygxc already conceded to more than once.
So you can't know nobody made any mistakes.
Mistakes can be deep.
---------------------------
To understand that better consider a game between two weak players but nobody 'blundered'.
And also - the game was a draw.
When either of those players is playing a much stronger player - they can still not 'blunder' but the stronger player tears them to pieces.
Anybody who's played a lot of chess knows that's how that works.

Wiith the current tech, a 32-piece tablebase is nothing but a dream. That's what "solving" is: knowing every possible outcome. Though, can we say "never"...? As trite as it may sound, who knows what the future will bring

Hah! Touché ...

You can't have it both ways. A blunder is an action that adversely changes the theoretical outcome for the player taking it.

If neither player blunders in a drawn game then that version of chess is a draw.

In that case nobody, not even a tablebase, could win a chess game of the same version against a player unless that player blunders.

People don't want infinity to exist.

cuz theyre scared a it.

what it tells us about its future.

theres no such thing as the future. it doesnt exist. and so ppl lie about it. ask any bohemienne.

This is a game not a math problem.

then whys the best player in the world a silicon math slave ?...but u make a good indirect thingy. theres enuf 'art' in chess to throw e/t off. o/w the best players on the world would be genius math ppl right ?...which theyre not even close to that.

i just wonder if theres ENUF art in chess where it becomes too prejudice to solve...hmmm.

That's @tygxc logic. Noughts and crosses is two humans playing but it's been solved many times.

Yes it is. I didn't say such games don't end in wins too.
You're talking about something else. Not addressing what I'm saying.
'If nobody makes a mistake the game ends in a draw.'
There's no evidence there's ever been such a game. Ever.
Plus two weak players can make no blunders and the game ends in a draw because their weak play was not punished by a much stronger player.
If you don't know that's how that works then you haven't played much chess or haven't been learning or are just refusing to consider it.
Which is fine.
But you won't be able to compete with tygxc on 'disconnecting'.

You didn't know?
His account closed days after making this forum.
Which means nobody can be blocked here.
However the chess.com staff is around.
So its not 'anything goes'.

'blunder' versus 'mistake' versus 'inadequate play' versus 'inferior play' versus 'playing for a draw instead of for a win' ...
Martin it depends on how you define 'blunder'.
There are many 'ways'.
As opposed to 'have it'.

But that's exactly why it's important to agree on the meaning of the words we're using in the argument.

@tygxc talks about "errors" and "blunders" meaning what most people interested in solutions of chess would respectively call half point blunders and full point blunders. An "error" to anyone but @tygxc could mean almost anything.

But at least it's easy enough to understand @tygxc's posts by simply doing the translation I just wrote to standard terms.

What do you mean by "blunder" in the text you posted?

Yes. A very general point that is not clear enough to many people is that what we want to discuss is concepts, and care is necessary to ensure that words are unambiguously associated with concepts.

It is a natural mistake to think of words as being fundamental - they are what comprise the communication. It is not uncommon for people to be having a discussion using words that have not been unambiguously defined. When this is so, you are not really discussing anything specific, just appearing to.

(Discussing "consciousness" provides many examples).

hilarious how important it is yet tygxc doesnt even understand what a game solution even is

Regarding 'agree' on the meaning of terms - even if we 'make a deal' and 'agree' on the meaning of the terms that doesn't mean other persons would.
I think its clear that blunder refers to a single move that is a mistake but is also in a category of bigger mistakes.
Also - 'half point blunder' and full point blunder' is too binary and too simplified to properly encompass or describe all mistakes and inferior play.
Chess is not a simple game and was not built to be simple.
Which means mistakes in chess aren't simple.
They're not.
---------------------
I think most people know that.
There's a whole spectrum of mistakes and bad plays and bad methods too. (inefficient on the clock for example)
I think it would be better to first 'agree' that mistakes in chess don't classify in a simple way.
But on the other hand to also be aware that the words we have are the tools available.
'Blunder' is a term in chess.
And in chess.com analysis and 'game review' the word 'blunder' does not cover all moves that are not among 'best moves'.
---------------------
Also pointing out that 'best moves' on analysis boards and in computer-checking chess puzzles are usually moves thought by engines to be 'best'.
But engines aren't perfect so they might get that wrong too - as opposed to being programmed to fail to play for a win as opposed to a draw - without the programmer being aware of same in an explicit way.
Why would the programmer not be explicity aware?
Because chess is Not solved. A fact conceded by tygxc on multiple occasions.
He has double conceded to the effect also that it 'can't be solved with today's technology' which refers back to the fact that it is Not solved.
He might not have realized on all those occasions that he was actually making a double concession.
----------------------------------
the forum title contains 'will never be solved' which ever so slightly but significantly diverts from its older cousin which is
'It Is not solved'.
Is not. Implications. Many. With many of those implications invalidating tygxc's claims and other claims 'Occam's Razor' style.
Is Not Solved.
Means that many claims in the forum are mispremised or unpremised.
Renders them into 'circular reasoning'.
A Grim Reaper - mowing down phony claims.
But no need to be Grim though. I'll leave that to the brothers Grimm.

@12240

"Wiith the current tech, a 32-piece tablebase is nothing but a dream." ++ Yes

"That's what solving is: knowing every possible outcome." ++ No, that is strongly solving. Checkers for example has been weakly solved, not strongly.

"Though, can we say "never"...? As trite as it may sound, who knows what the future will bring"
++ 'Never underestimate technology' - Schaeffer