Chess will never be solved, here's why

@tygxc, see that @Optimissed also understands this point.

@12375

"you go for accuracy" ++ That is what I do.

"a condemnation of anything that frightens you" ++ Nothing frightens me, I do not even condemn the purists, or the agnosticists, or the trolls.

"we are trying to establish whether it's true or false" ++ The evidence is massive that Chess is a draw, i.e. the ultra-weak solution. We are trying to establish how to achieve the draw, i.e. the weak solution. I say the 110 consecutive ICCF WC Finals draws are at least part of the weak solution of Chess. These provide a redundant, but not yet complete answer.

Why can't you let that go and move on, rather than perpetually bringing it up? I agree that we can know that it's a loss. I even suspect that not knowing it reflects on the actual strength in chess of the commentator, never mind on logical purism. We don't need to be constrained to inhabit a world of mathematical purism, which is an ideal world, only loosely related to reality since it all depends on interpretation in any case. So just forget it and move on, or are you in some great fight of the dinosaurs to establish who has the best intellect here?

(Obviously really meaning second best )

@12382

"Why can't you let that go and move on" ++ It is Elroch who perpetually accuses me of not understanding what weakly solved means. He holds a puristic view about 'all opposition' that gets nobody anywhere, while I hold a more realistic view.

"not knowing it reflects on the actual strength in chess of the commentator"
++ Maybe, I think it is a religious purism (ALL legal moves) and agnosticism (we cannot tell).

"We don't need to be constrained to inhabit a world of mathematical purism"
++ Mathematics is a very useful science, with many practical applications.
Most of mathematics has been derived to handle real world problems.
Some mathematics has some beauty in itself, but no practical use at all.

"or are you in some great fight of the dinosaurs to establish who has the best intellect here?"
++ No not at all. If I want to fight, then I play chess. I do not need to boast about intellect.
I find it funny to be insulted as having low intellect.
I am only interested in the subject of solving Chess and am only interested in the truth.

They are getting really wokery at the top of the tree where the money goes, Llama.

I understand. There's a strange atmosphere on this thread and if I didn't know any better (I don't) I'd say it's childish. I don't mean you. Like 8 year olds boasting that their dad is better. Even so, as they say in the antiques game, "it is what it is". Any antiques around here care to contradict that?

I don't think you have a low intellect. I would say that you are bright although I have thought for a while that maybe some kind of tunnel vision is in play around some subjects. Maybe it's better put as a sort of goal-orientated vision. I may have already mentioned it because I can't really see player coming up with it by himself and people do copy me a lot, after leaving what they imagine to be a suitable interval. The ones who don't deny it are welcome to do it.

I am not above boasting. I mean, some people really ask for it, by doing exactly the same in a more implicit manner.

hi

hi

I wish you could move on from your response but you do seem to be stuck. It amounts to trying to force your opinions onto someone. I'm perfectly aware that you and tygxc are arguing from different places or standpoints. Both are valid. Wish you could recognise that and move on because it does look like you're the one who's stuck.

I know what you mean by "proof" but it's clear that tygxc is using a different, more pragmatic meaning. My impression is that he won't back down to a person trying to force their opinion onto him. I could reach an understanding with tygxc inside a week but you aren't on course to achieve it. It doesn't make you right because it's now obvious that he's standing up to what he sees as bullying by refusing to budge.

He gets muted, after blowing a gasket.

don't need to be constrained to inhabit a world of mathematical purism, which is an ideal world, only loosely related to reality

perfect

Doesn't seem that way to me. I think almost everyone but me blows their gaskets.

Thankyou. You are clearly a person of great ability, as well as of great charm.

@Optimissed, firstly, no, I am not stating my "opinion", any more than I would be expressing an opinion if I said that 1+1 is not 3, but is 2. The mathematical sciences are not made up of a set of opinions, they are made up of a set of things that are known to be true. Note that it is not only not an opinion, it is also not "mine". I am communicating what is known.

Are you familiar with the concept of a proof? Are you aware that a weak solution of a game is a proof of the game value? If you look at a paper on the first part of the solution of checkers, you will see a reference to the proof tree (which is the analysis that rigorously proves the result from a given position, by reaching a position with known value at the end of every line). A proof tree does not just deal with opponent moves that seem playable, it deals with all LEGAL opponent moves, because proofs are rigorous.

I am actually rather sure that you understand that @tygxc uses heuristics (vague positional understanding and rough rules) and empirical evidence (game results and unreliable evaluations) to support a conjecture, then describes this as "solving chess". You have drawn attention to this on occasion.

@12397

"I am not stating my opinion" ++ You are imposing your interpretation. Using some CAPITALS does not make you right. Besides, laughing or insulting are no valid ways of proof.

"mathematical sciences are not made up of a set of opinions, they are made up of a set of things that are known to be true." ++ No. The Riemann hypothesis, Goldbach's conjecture and many more are assumed to be true but not yet proven. Ramanujan was famous for producing theorems without proof and claimed a Hindu Goddess told him in his dream.

"Are you aware that a weak solution of a game is a PROOF of the game value?" ++ Are you aware that a weak solution of a game is unnecessary for an ultra-weak solution? Example: Hex.

"@tygxc uses heuristics" ++ I use Chess knowledge.
That is allowed: 'Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based methods in game-solving programs.' Games solved: Now and in the future

"empirical evidence (game results"
++ Yes, 110 draws out of 110 games in the ICCF WC Finals, at average 5 days/move with 2 servers of 90 million positions per second, the strongest chess on the planet.

"and unreliable evaluations" ++ No. The 110 ICCF WC Finals games link the initial position to reliably known drawn positions in average 39 moves and in a redundant way.

All good points.

Though, wouldn't it also be safe to say that the high frequency of draws in ICCF doesn't necessarily prove that chess is solved ("softly", or whatever the correct term is) - as it might also simply prove that players with access to all the same tools will likely all play at the same level?

In other words, I'm assuming the ICCF top players all have access to the same engines and databases as each other - so isn't it rather expected that they'll all be drawing each other in their games ... ?

The real discussion between you and tygxc is on a higher level ... on a kind of meta-judgemental or interpretational level. You are stating what is known in the context of your approach to mathematics, which is that of a mathematical purist. tygxc is attempting to state what is known to him, as a scientist-pragmatist. One approach is not "better" than the other.

Yes, ty uses heuristics and they may not all be good. I'm equally sure that there is no possible solution of chess via mathematics. The only possibility is via a more pragmatic, scientific approach. You may disagree with that and you may not like it but I am also stating what is known, by a different process of "knowing" than the deductive one you prefer. All deductive judgements must still be judged to be appropriate and that's where the assumptive thinking may lurk for those who think that syllogistic logic is a be-all-and-end-all.

^^ Again, you're making assumptions regarding the correct application of mathematical expertise. Those assumptions are subject to questioning. Merely your complete insistence that you're right raises questions regarding the assumptions you must have made for you to be so sure.