Chess will never be solved, here's why

" I want to incorporate chess knowledge into weakly solving chess, as is beneficial according to this "

but you arent, you are using general chess knowledge to justify objectively incorrect reasoning.

""advantage of 0.2" ++ Again: computer evaluations like +0.20 make no sense.
The only objective, absolute evaluation is win / draw / loss."

then why do you use those artificial evaluations to justify that e4 is better than a4?

""if tygxc wants projects"
++ There is no need for a project with good assistants and modern computers: the 17 ICCF WC finalists and their 2 servers each of 90 million positions per second do it for free."

not 90 million positions per second, 5 days per move. you keep interchanging nodes and full positional evaluations. even assuming perfect pruning (which is the opposite from the truth) a weak solve requires a full positional evaluation of each of the 10&17 +

"Weakly solving chess needs to consider 10^17 positions"

false statement. this assumes that no moves besides perfect moves on one side are considered, but in order to find the perfect move, you have to consider non perfect moves.

why arent you addressing this fact?

idc about arrogance, but tygxc is definitely more intellectually dishonest than anyone else here.

(all need to be resolved)

didju write this Dodo Due ??...so then ur elroch right ?

That's not ny username, nor is Elroch as it turns out...

This reveals how confused @tygxc really is. A perfect analogy is the following:

A: here is a lottery ticket. Is there a chance of it winning?

T: no, there is no chance of it winning.

A: are you sure? When you calculate it, there is a very small probability of it winning, but not zero

T: no it's zero. I am absolutely certain it won't win. (Jeering) I suppose you are going to come back next week and say it's won.

The point is that there is a big difference between something that is known to be true and something that is strongly believed. This includes something that is very likely. The difference is in the JUSTIFIABLE STATE OF BELIEF. A truth is something with a probability of 1. Nothing else is known for certain (delusions of doing so are not the same!)

@tygxc, do you understand the question in my earlier post? Otherwise not answering it is plain intellectual dishonesty. If you don't understand it, we can just add that to the list. But I think you should be able to have a go. Click on the link.

I don't believe it's necessarily intellectual dishonesty. There are some points where he refuses to accept the validity of quite good criticism, by just ignoring it. Yet many of tygxc's comments outside this thread are very good and dedicated to helping players improve, which seems to be something he understands. People who use the extremely childish downvoting, kindly provided by our hosts for us to antagonise others with, are extremely childish themselves, especially when they down vote ALL someone's comments, which more or less proclaims that they are intellectually dim or are trolling. It's going on on two threads at least and several are the candidates for such behaviour. Yet I find it hard to believe that tygxc is a troll in that sense. If he were capable of that then it would be very extreme and given his honest help to chess learners, I don't think he IS a troll. Perhaps there are other, more obvious candidates who enjoy stoking the fires of discontent.

So I don't think tygxc is intellectually dishonest although he might be capable of a better input, if he were willing to accept that not all of his beliefs re. solving chess are correct. Just my take on it.

This has been pointed out for years. Why isn't he addressing this fact? Possibly because he believes in intellectual authority, as do a few others here? It means that he isn't alone.

If others can make arguments from authority then so can he. That could be the mental process concerned, which may not be entirely unjustified.

chess

e=mc^2

chmccss

c^3 * h * m * s^2

where m is mass in kilograms, h is height in meters, c is the speed of light, in m/s and s is the time in seconds.

Let us assume the American Staunton Series Chess Set.

m = 3.25 lb = 1474.175 g = 1.474175 kg

h = 3.75 in = 9.525 cm = 0.09525 m

s = 4 hours = 14400 s

c = 299,792,458 m/s

(299,792,458 m/s)^3 * 1.474175 kg * 0.09525 m * 14400 s

26,944,002,417,373,989,539,335,912 m^3 * 1.474175 kg * 0.09525 m * 14400 s / s^3

A bit of simplification...

26,944,002,417,373,989,539,335,912 m^3 * 1.474175 kg * 0.09525 m * 14400 / s^2

2,566,416,230,254,872,503,621,745.618 m^4 * 1.474175 kg * 14400 / s^2

Final answer

54,480,191,705,798,064,091,582,850,588.37816 m⁴ kg s⁻²

(54 octillion)

I solved chess

Upvoting/down voting systems are actually very good tools for identifying trolls, crackpots, etc. I'll use myself as an example...in terms of overall downvotes, Optimissed > DiogenesDue > Elroch. This stands to reason...I confront trolls and crackpots head on all the time, Elroch does so quite sparingly. I don't engage in namecalling and remain civil even while engaging with people who are, ergo I have less downvotes in general than you. The measuring stick has correctly ordered the objectionable content...and over time it is quite accurate. An exception would be in threads where trolls and crackpots are purposefully congregating and reasonable posters are ghe minority, like the climate change hoax thread.

10^17 is Tygxc's number and nobody else's, so you could not have picked a worse example of arguing from authority...

I don't confrot trolls or crackpots unless I think it's necessary because they could be believed and that would harm a discussion I'm engaged in. Hence it's a vendetta by someone who's a bit childish. Not really important but the downvoting provision itself is extremely childish, for a site that pretends to wish to create a "nice" atmosphere for discussion.

The climate change hoax thread is, of course, a troll magnet. It's also a vehicle for people to express opinions that don't look right to a lot of others, sometimes for good reasons. It's still important that people should express their opinions if they wish to. Perhaps that's where you and I differ.

You should just be very glad that chess.com does not display your overall total upvotes and downvotes on your profile like some sites do...

the thing is that there is no authority that supports the claim, nor does tygxc cite any.

in fact, sometimes the authorities that tygxc cites contradict the claims that he's trying to make.

I have no evidence but I probably believe you. I don't generally read what tygxc writes on solving chess unless it has the look of a novel position for him. I often read what he writes in other threads on chess imrovement and occasionally find myself correcting him. If my chess knowledge is out of date, some of his might have been gleaned from Steinitz's compendium of chess answers. However, his comments are often very good indeed.

It would be like this site advertising the number of trolls they have. It's a bad idea, anti-democratic etc etc. Wouldn't bother me particularly though, because that's what it would be.

Someone who downvotes is someone incapable of making an argument for their beliefs. If they can't make an argument, then their beliefs are unjustified.

Does that matter in your mind? Because you just got done saying a few posts before:

"It's still important that people should express their opinions if they wish to."

You also specifically were applying this sentiment to "people expressing opinions that don't look right to a lot of others". I certainly hope your position here is not selective.

"Gets killed September 1243 for being right "

There's a difference between the right way and the wrong way to make arguments.