Chess will never be solved, here's why

tygxc is about to falsely claim in response to this new commenter that chess can be weakly solved in the near future. Unfortunately for tygxc's reputation, it is widely known that tygxc bases these claims off of a complete lack of understanding of what "solved" means in game theory, assuming computer perfection despite not allowing any search space, and the weird delusion that statistical inference/conventional knowledge is mathematical proof.

@12672

"That doesn't change anything about the game, from a practical standpoint"
++ A weak solution changes about the game from a practical standpoint.
Of course Chess is a draw, but knowing how to draw changes.

"a complete tablebase of the entire game?" ++ That is something expected for 2100.

"it would essentially kill chess in any format where assistance is possible (such as online chess) ... which would be rather unfortunate." ++ A weak solution also does that.

"the chess-player part of me isn't sure I'd like it at all"
++ 'Chess will die at the hands of those who love it most' - Bronstein

Unfortunately, broad-brush...

thats what i like so much abt Zee...hes very smart on abuncha stuff

gotta love how tygxc still insists upon this as fact when quantum advantage doesnt even exist for chess, and he just randomly assumes that quantum computing will get better exponentially.

Apparently they were thinking about this at QHack 2021.

Solving chess would be equivalent of developing a 32 piece tablebase, and right now we are taking over a decade just to go from 7 pieces to 8. Probably 10 pieces will be the limit with supercomputers. Quantum computers would be needed for anything more than that.

does Siggy have infallible knowledge abt judging value of ea piece/pawn PER ply ?...if so ?...YAY !!

but if not ?...then tablebasing 7 pieces isnt 100% right ?...so how could tabling (10) pieces be more solutionable ?...see ?

so. now one hasta ask...how imperative izzit that piece eval is EXACTLY correct ? (which it'll probly neverever be - so hope dash no)...is 99% accuracy good enuf ?...iknow iknow all u metamathers wanna 100%. well ?...i got news 4ya hun - ur not gonna gettit. so. whats close enuf ? hope enuf to yield a middling solve.

What? How would it affect online chess at all (let alone kill it). If you cheat with stockfish you win, if you cheat with a solution, you win.

It's too difficult for humans to memorize how to draw in chess, against so many possibilities. This is why players like you, and me, and all the others here still lose games. The move tree extends too far in all directions - eventually things pass beyond our preparation and we're left to play on our own, in human territory, where mistakes are inevitable.

Even top grandmasters, like Nakamura for example, sometimes fail to draw in Armageddon games with Black, where a simple draw would win them the match.

This demonstrates that even the strongest human players, who've studied chess nearly their entire lives, can still find it too difficult to draw.

This is why I say that the practical value of knowing "chess is a draw when played perfectly" is negligible ... such a declaration offers no beneficial impact.

wow a forum thats been going on for 2 years...

yes and the OP was too ashamed and closed only after a few days of posting this.

sad..

also because the downvotes on the first page is crazy. 💀💀

chess.com is ruthless 😭

No you can't.

It's not possible in all positions in either Endgame under either basic or competition rules (especially if you're playing the lone king).

Nothing tells you how to win either Endgame even from all winning positions under competition rules. (Most are not.)

I could tell someone with no skill how to win both Endgames from any ply count 0 position where it's possible against any defence in either set of rules, but I doubt you could even do that. (You'd probably come up with something like this, which is not a solution under either set of rules.)

The fact that a strategy that wins under competition rules against a tablebase, even one designed for competition rules, doesn't necessarily win against any defence has obviously escaped you and probably always will.

lol op closed because his comment got 203 downvotes

Those guys are so unoriginal with their scams. Is that what you call a spark plug?

tygxc already claimed he knows 'better and more' than all of us.
Right?
Answers many questions concerning what he says.
That's always in the background. Plus often the foreground too.
Him finally letting that 'slip out' is the 'demarcation' in his two years of posts.
It is perhaps the most that will be 'elicited' from him.

Good post.
Transcends all of tygxc's two years of posts in one fell swoop.

Here it is. I just solved chess.