Chess will never be solved, here's why

@12542

"please be quiet" ++ Please be quiet yourself. I understand more of it than you ever will.

[Removed: Spam] ~W

LOL he finally breaks.

yeah, im sure the guy that tried to substitute a merriam-webster definition of proof as an excuse for not having mathematical rigor, knows more than literal mathematicians.

you'll notice how the most recent person to support you for even but a moment, was confronted with your actual claims, and thought them so ridiculous he claimed that we were making it up, LOL.

if you would kindly stop clogging the forum with slop it would save the time of many people.

quoting one guy, lying about the quotations context, and then lying about the contents of the rest of their work really doesnt make you look good, especially when it becomes clear you havent actually read what's in there.

the saddest part is that you dont think you are lying. but you are.

MEGA getting under tygxc's skin?
tygxc usually so Serene.
but maybe his Sharp Retort can provoke MEGA ?
------------------------------------------
I want to be nice to tygxc ...
how to do that while still saying what I think
tygxc 'understands' more of his disinfo like 'nodes per second' and 'taking the square root' and his misinterpreting 'engine draws' than Anybody in the Universe?
His 'understanding ' is 'Celestial'?
Lets not put it quite that way.
I want to be nice.
----------------------------------
Checkers was supposedly 'found' to be a draw with optimal play by both sides in 2007.
Checkers. Not chess.
But they 'messed up' the finding by connecting it with 'weakly solved'.
I objected. Not complained.
I object.
And now a Project could be:
How to present it in a condensed way with absolutely no technical phrases or Jargon. No loose ends. No fuzziness.
While maintaining complete objectivity too.
No 'humanizing' it except for acknowledging that its mainly a game between humans.
Lets see if 'weakly solved' can be improved on Occam's Razor Style.
(not you tygxc - this Project is for those who want to convey what's established to newcomers - its not for 'foil' purposes)

MEGA I'm finding it interesting comparing tygxc and Washi.
Washi told me a day ago that plants have been knocking CO2 levels Down to 420 ppm for many years.
But just a few posts ago he admitted that CO2 levels have been coming UP ...
So I'm asking now which one he wants.
So he switches to diurnal ranges.
--------------------
Paladin PALadin where Do You roam?

Exwa is very different from tygxc.

unlike tygxc, ExWA:

actually addresses refutations (albeit fallaciously), actually tries to read sources, actually acknowledges and concedes things (although never to the effect of the overall argument), actually acknowledges his own shortcomings. And most importantly, ExWA isnt acting like random beliefs are absolute fact and consensus like tygxc does. (he believes his opinions to be true, but thats everybody. tygxc acts like there is some grand consensus on stuff that he literally just made up)

tygxc's fantasy is different than climate denial or flat earthism because literally nobody is on his side. Climate deniers and flat earthers dont feel special if they are the only ones.

tygxc's delusions are so fundamentally fallacious and fantastical that math literature doesnt even recognize the possibility that someone could make the interpretations he does. Like seriously, thinking "all opposition = all 'reasonable' opposition" in the context of a MATH PROOF!?!?!? only somebody completely divorced from any mathematial knowledge would even use the word 'reasonable' in that context.

MEGA that's interesting and yes come to think of it -
its kind of like Washi (ExploringWA) does Not want to lie ...
and has demonstrated that he can understand some things in science.
Did you see his latest tactic?
He switched up to 500 million years !
Knowing that he was pinned down on his 420 ppm position.
Its very much like a boxer bobbing and weaving.
---------------------------------
OK they're different but I'm suggesting there are strong parallels.
They're both on a Mission.
Neither one intends to be Budged.
And they use some similiar Tactics.
Especially Switching Up ...
Yes nobody is on tygxc's side but on the other hand his mission is a very Obscure one.
Whereas Washi's denial of climate science position .... one seventh of the population holds similiar misconceptions.
-------------------------------
I think I see what you're saying though - tygxc's personality is different ... his 'cheese' partly comes from the obscurity of his positions.
What I've discovered about Washi is that one can talk to him.
It 'works' better to be nice with him it seems.
But with tygxc I found there's no good way to really talk to him in the 2nd person.
Like when I reminded him about 'ops per second' years ago his response was something like 'We don't Care about ops per second. Its Nodes per second!!'
Also maybe Washi would never bother with this obscure chess project.
Even though its remarkable that the world's richest man Elon Musk has taken a position on it.

@12549

"if you would kindly stop clogging the forum"
++ Kindly stop clogging the forum yourself.
It is clear you know very little about chess and very little about mathematics.
Those are no requirements: everybody is free to post.
However, your empty accusations and insults violate the terms of service.

empty accusations that i had personally verified by multiple mathematicians at my college?

lmfao you are beyond parody. I asked for your mathematics education for a reason, and you refused to give it. it's quite obvious why.

I know you've tried to report my comments, and yet it's always failed. i wonder why.

"de·lu·sion
/dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)n/
noun 
a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions."

yeah that's not an insult, just an accurate description of your belief system. claiming basic wikipedia is wrong, claiming that a half dozen in depth explanations by various math websites are wrong (without even bothering to look at them), claiming that the sources you yourself cite are wrong, it's honestly worse than a flat- earther. because at least a flat earther has their fellow 'free thinkers' from where they gain affirmation and ideas from - you're on your own.

you make errors so basic like assuming that the number of positions in a hypothesized proof tree is the same number of positions necessary to find the proof tree.

you think that "we know from gambits" is somehow proof.

you have literally gone on record in claiming that a mathematician strives for the same type of accuracy as a meteorologist.

I dont need to go to a mathematician to know that what you say is completely ludicrous, but i went to them to confirm your fantasy because i thought, "surely this guy cant be so delusional as to think himself better than mathematicians" but boy was I wrong.

They literally both admonished me for wasting their time for something as ridiculous as your claims, they told me that as someone who is pursuing a career as a mathematician, I shouldnt be wasting my time with people so divorced from any sort of mathematical knowledge.

I'd agree that some on tygxc's claims are inaccurate, but I don't think his whole approach is wrong.

This isn't a pure maths forum. We aren't necessarily bound by pure mathematical definitions.

If you could say it's beyond a reasonable doubt or that it's 99.xx% certain that it's a draw, that would be an answer to the mystery of what happens with perfect play, and could be regarded as an 'ultra weak' solution.

you misunderstand tygxc, he claims that it's a mathematical proof.

You are understandably thinking that tygxc's comments are not trying to be referring to pure math, because of course, no reasonable person would think that a 99.xx% probability is a true mathematical proof. But that's what tygxc is legitimately arguing. He's trying to claim that it's a pure math proof. he even quoted a definition from a pure math paper.

Plus, i wont fault you on this, but you should know that the term 'ultra weak solution' refers to a pure math proof.

Great examples of what ultra weak solutions actually looks like are from the game Chomp, and Hex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

wiki.math.wisc.edu/images/Chomp_Sol.pdf

https://web.mit.edu/sp.268/www/hex-notes.pdf

you'll notice how it works in only pure deductive logic, straight from the source of the rules of the game.

youll notice that tygxc has plenty of opportunity to contradict me, to claim that he isnt actually claiming a pure math proof. but he wont.

I do not believe he recognises that solving a game (such as chess) is technically a mathematical problem. He seems not to have a good grounding in mathematics in the broader sense (maths/computer science/information theory/game theory - i.e. all fields that use the same paradigm of deduction from axioms to arrive at abstract truth).

@12553

"some on tygxc's claims are inaccurate"
++ Which one? My claim, or some claim put into my mouth by some troll?

"I don't think his whole approach is wrong"
++ It is right, based on facts and figures, backed up with links.

"This isn't a pure maths forum" ++ It is not. This is a chess site, not a maths site.
For what it is worth, I know more about maths than I know about chess.
I have never been a professional chess player.

"We aren't necessarily bound by pure mathematical definitions."
++ Do not let purism stand in the way of progress. I adhere to the mathematical definitions as much as possible.

"the mystery of what happens with perfect play" ++ We now know: 116 perfect games

"could be regarded as an 'ultra weak' solution" ++ I say for all practical purpose Chess has been ultra-weakly solved, and the game-theoretical value of the initial position is a draw. For all practical purpose means that this is true but not necessarily according to puristic standards.

@12557

"He seems not to have a good grounding in the mathematical sciences."
++ More than any here.

I would assess your main skill as the ability to unashamedly make the same false proclamations over and over again. As an example which no-one who has a clue would support - "I say for all practical purpose Chess has been ultra-weakly solved"

(For comparison, I have a first in maths from Cambridge, and an MMath and a lot of experience of applications of mathematics (as well as physics and computational techniques. I respect those who stuck it out longer than me and completed a research degree - I got distracted by microcomputers and deserted academia!)

You are clearly not someone whose main subject was mathematics, unless you have forgotten an implausible amount. I don't think you understand the difference between a mathematical deduction and a statistical inference - you confuse the two all the time. I imagine you have done something that applied stats at some time (nothing to do with proving anything, including solving a game).

i doubt that tygxc has any history with applied stats because he breaks a lot of highschool level rules with his statistical claims - remember when he claimed that chess errors followed a poisson distribution when chess literally violates most of the axioms necessary?

You are right. So he has a level of knowledge that means he knows of a Poisson Distribution, but not its scope. A rather flimsy familiarity.