Chess will never be solved, here's why

@12316

"where an error were to occur the difference isn't going to be 1 ply"
++ I do not say the difference is big, I only say
P(A errs after 5 days to move) > P(Bmisses win after 5 days to move).
If it make you happier then >= is fine too. For the argument it may even be =.

"Straight after a move is made, an error suspicion or an unexpected move would almost never happen due to similar analysis tools and same or less amount of analysis on the position."
Here is an example:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164336 
White made a hasty move. Maybe his servers were allocated to another game,
maybe he had used up his 50 days/10 moves and had to reply the same day.
Black spots the queen sacrifice and white resigns.

"They would have to use more time than their opponent did on their turn"
++ P(A errs|A uses 2 days to move) >= P(A errs|A uses 5 days to move)
P(B misses win|B uses 5 days to move) >= P (B misses win|B uses 10 days to move)

"It doesn't mean double error game probability = single error game probability²."
++ It does.
P(A errs & B misses win) = P(A errs) * P(B misses win|A has erred)
This is basic conditional probability.

So if P(A errs) >= P(B misses win|A has erred) as supported by 2 arguments,
then P(A errs & B misses win) <= P²(A errs)

@12344

"it only even provides suggested moves for around 10000 positions"
++ After considering 10^17 positions.

@12311

"This one is ok."
++ All of it is OK, I quoted Prof. van den Herik verbatim.

Tut, tut - this is a bare-faced lie

So? That's an analysis tree with billions of errors. That's how analysis works. If the moves were all correct you would not need it!

i thought he was calling both sides of the tygxc vs normal people debacle, my bad.

but you didnt. you took one sentence, lied about its meaning, and then constructed a bunch of other complete fabrications and attributed it to herik.

again, tygxc, why arent you understanding the basic fact that 99% ≠ certainty?

it considers that many positions to provide suggested moves yes. simply having more analysis means nothing lmfao.

""The winner for Chess on a 8x8 grid is unsolved for white or black" ++ Chess is a draw."

van de herik says otherwise if you bothered to read his work.

@12350

"this is a bare-faced lie"
++ You are the bare-faced liar
Page 278 1.1 Conventions line 14-18

funny, he mentions how a weak solution covers all possible moves by the opposition in that article, explicitly contradicting your claims.

so that makes tygxc the bare faced liar. in addition, its mentioned that chess isnt solved in any capacity. that makes tygxc lying again.

or maybe tygxc is just so... delusional and uneducated in basic math concepts that he literally doesnt understand it. i wouldnt be surprised either way. the main issue in these concepts is that tygxc's false misrepresentations and fallacies are so fundamentally ludicrous that most literature doesnt even consider them a possibility to address.

tygxc takes a position that by contradicting the realities - he can be annoying.
He'll essentially fail in that though.
But apparently gets some kind of buzz by being persistently and repetitively wrong about everything he pushes.

That's correct @Elroch
tygxc hasn't grasped yet that repeating his errors doesn't fix his errors.
But every now and then he drops a little false dime trying to claim that others 'can't understand' or 'don't like it' or that they're 'trolls'.
He knows all of those suggestions by him are false so why does he make them?
Various emotional payoffs perhaps.
My experience and observation of people spreading disinformation is that they don't really keep track nor care of whether they believe their own disinfo nor of their their own real motives nor what causes them to do what they do.
And introspection would be uncomfortable to them too.

He's right, of course. Everyone knows it's a draw. All you're doing is desperately quibbling about how 'rigorously ' it's been proved.

nobody is contesting that chess is in all likelihood a draw.

the issue, is that tygxc claims that there is a mathematically rigorous proof.

he conflates general knowledge with absolute proof.

because tygxc has literally no idea about the difference, he often accuses others of claiming that chess isnt in all likelihood a draw, and treats arguments as such.

Its not proved at all.

whats hilarious (and sad) is that tygxc is gunna think this guy is gunna stay on his side but i give it 3 posts MAX before he too realizes tygxc's in a fantasy world (assuming he stays on the thread).

remember when tygxc claimed that mathematicians aim for the same level of accuracy as weather stations?

I missed that one but that sounds like tygxc.
But the newcomers to the forum often 'click' and realize about him.
But some don't. Or don't want to. Or pretend not to.