Chess will never be solved, here's why

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

The categories of moves you need to consider when evaluating play (and you can name these what you will)

1. Error (changes the evaluation by half a point)

2. Blunder (changes the evaluation by a full point)

3. Suboptimal move (A move that retains the theoretical outcome or current evaluation, but does not force as few options for opponent as possible. This includes engine or human play that aims for a draw.)

4. Optimal move (retains current evaluation and leaves as few moves as possible for opponent that retain current evaluation.

What you can take away from this is, even if engine play is free from errors and blunders against their current opponents, unless they're facing explicitly optimal moves, you cannot conclude they're unbeatable.

Edit. And evaluation meaning objective outcome in this post

optimal v suboptimal is subjective because there could be more moves available from one move to another but they are harder to find for engines, and dont forget the difference betwee "evaluation" and win/lose/draw position.

That's true of course, sometimes there is only one move available but it's obvious. However, choosing a move that leaves fewest options for opponent I think is the most objective measurement for optimal and my assumption is that against human or engine play, on average, this way of playing challenges them the most.

@12264

"1. Error (changes the evaluation by half a point)" ++ Yes.

"2. Blunder (changes the evaluation by a full point)" ++ Yes.

"3. Suboptimal move (A move that retains the theoretical outcome or current evaluation,
but does not force as few options for opponent as possible."
++ No. If it retains the game-theoretic value, then it is a good move.
The number of options i.e. good moves as replies does not matter.
The likelihood of the opponent to err is not correlated to the number of options.
It depends on the weaknesses of the opponent.
If an opponent is weak at defending, then he is more likely to err if you attack him,
regardless of how many good replies he has.
If an opponent is weak at attacking, then he is more likely to err if you coax him to attack, regardless of how many good replies he has.
If an opponent is bad at rook endings, then he is more likely to err if you go into a rook ending, regardless of how many good moves he has.
It is subjective: depends on the opponent, or your perception of him.

"4. Optimal move (retains current evaluation and leaves as few moves as possible for opponent that retain current evaluation)"
++ No. All moves that are neither error (?) nor blunder (??) are optimal moves in the game-theoretic sense. In the practical sense some may be subjectively more or less optimal depending on the weaknesses of the opponent.
That is one reason why the ICCF WC Finalists start by analysing all games of their opponents:
to search for weaknesses, elements he undervalues or overvalues.

@12266

"choosing a move that leaves fewest options for opponent
I think is the most objective measurement for optimal"
++ The only objective measurement for optimal is retaining the game-theoretic value.
There are subjective reasons why one good move is better than another against a particular opponent in a particular situation, but that is subjective, depends on the perceived weaknesses of the opponent. In practice leaving many good options may even be better,
to force the opponent to consider them all, use up thinking time and get tired.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 leaves white many good options,
but is considered the best move, and was played in 10 ICCF WC Finals games.

Apart from that there are also moves that logically cannot be better than other moves.
1 a4 cannot logically be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4, though all draw.
1 Nh3 cannot logically be better than 1 Nf3, though all draw.
It is game knowledge that the center, d4-e4-d5-e5 is important as high ground,
so moves that control the center make it more likely for the opponent to err.
It is game knowledge that time is important, and that 3 tempi are enough to win,
so moves that lose a tempo for no good reason are more likely to lead to later errors.
1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1 still draws, but is logically inferior.

Would you count Qa7+ as optimal and Qxc7 or Qxb5+ as suboptimal here? (All moves maintain the game theoretic value.)

@tygxc #12267

Not much point in agreeing or disagreeing with the use of these terms when you don't use them in the way people working in the area of chess solutions conventionally use them. All you're saying is you want to give them a different set of meanings from those chosen by the person you're addressing. You don't have any special authority to insist on your own meanings.

@12271

The definitions are not mine, but those of GM Hübner.
'I have attached question marks to the moves which change a winning position into a drawn game, or a drawn position into a losing one, according to my judgment; a move which changes a winning game into a losing one deserves two question marks.'

Game-theoretically there are only good moves, errors (?), or blunders (??).

this is conflating definitions here. the original poster was referring to moves that made it the hardest for the engines to deal with, not for maintaining the current game state. of course, im not surprised you wouldnt follow basic context.

id address your other fallacies tygxc but they are all too off topic and unnecessary. The chief one being that conventional game knowledge is not mathematically rigorous logic.

its quite sad that you tried to shut down an otherwise interesting conversation to self insert your own usage as the only way to achieve objectivity.

there were plenty of other possible ways to measure, for example based on measure engine performance to certain algorithms, or longest think time to game state proof, but no, only what tygxc thinks matters.

It is inappropriate to redefine the terms error and blunder in an entirely non-standard way. Both half point and full point errors are blunders. And the terms "half point error" and "full point error" are adequate, clear and not in disagreement with normal usage.

yet again, a reminder to all that the ICCF championship games have LITERALLY NOTHING to do with solving chess, as none of their games are backed up with proof.