Chess will never be solved, here's why

Nice game. With Rc8ch coming up looking like a nice 'money order' in the bank whether its going to be a 'check' or not. After Rf8 the clergyman will go to heaven and so will the rooks and white's dpawn but white's knight will be left to 'romp'.

Yes !!
EE got that right !
The 'Quantum computers' part is a little dubious.
Who knows how computers will evolve?
But he's got it right about the 7 versus 8 piece tablebases.
I've been saying that for a long time.
He understands that.
If he can get that right ... how come he chooses to be a climate skeptic?
We don't know. Maybe he doesn't either. Or ... 'probably'.

@12677

"Solving chess would be equivalent of developing a 32 piece tablebase"
++ That would be strongly solving chess, expected for 2100.

However we here discuss weakly solving Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.

@12680

"It's too difficult for humans to memorize how to draw in chess"
++ Yes, Nepomniachtchi even lost a table base draw against Carlsen in the Classical World Championship Match, though that endgame is strongly solved.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2127373

"eventually things pass beyond our preparation and we're left to play on our own, in human territory, where mistakes are inevitable." ++ Yes, but no longer in ICCF World Championship Finals with engines at 5 days/move: they have reached perfection this year.

The findings influence human play. Some previously respected openings are now shunned at top level, like the King's Indian, Pirc, Alékhine Defense, Caro Kann. Some openings previously considered harmless or subpar have now become main line, like the Giuoco Pianissimo with d3 and c3, the London, the Colle. Some openings previously considered risky have now been proven dependable, like the Najdorf, Catalan, Sveshnikov.

Creating a false image of a consensus is horribly dishonest and unfortunately what I'd expect from you. It should be against TOS to lie as you do. it is truly unfortunate that there is no rule to prevent your disinformation.

Again, why do you continue acting as if there is anyone else in the world that believes that claim?

T-guys most revealing post.
Visible here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=626#comment-105470373-------------------
adding a copy of the surrounding posts and that post so that its not 'lost'.
I put it in 'reading mode' and copied the text on the right.
Not sure if that improved anything but here it is:
--------------------------------
tygxc
@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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 tygxc 3 days ago 0 #12509
@12557

"He seems not to have a good grounding in the mathematical sciences."
++ More than any here.
---------------------------------------------
 Elroch 3 days ago -1 #12510
tygxc wrote
12557 
"He seems not to have a good grounding in the mathematical sciences."
++ More than any here.

Well, since you make it necessary, let's compare: what are your credentials, @tygxc?
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).
-----------------------

Playerafar you should probably reformat your post so it doesnt get flagged as spam

it is funny how throughout that entire exchange how tygxc talked so much big game and then sissied out when asked to even provide a single course that they took, while also continuing to ignore the very basic math facts presented to him.

I shortened it quite a bit. Thanks MEGA though. Yes - sincere thanks.
Just a couple of minutes ago. I might 'format' it a little more. As you say.
Posts don't copy well.
T-guy might delete that post.
----------------------------------
MEGA - regarding copying entire forums and storing them somewhere - there are probably IT guys who can do that in one action.
Without the so-called 'HTML' which requires one to be on the internet.
In my plodding ways - if I want to copy a forum I have to do it one page at a time.
Maybe there's a way to increase the number of lines per page.

I've now shortened it so there's only one post above and one below.
MEGA - in the continuing comparison between tygxc and Washi -
it has seemed over the months that tygxc is more serene.
But things aren't always what they seem to be.
Washi's looking better these days - not so much 'conceited' as partisan.
tygxc's beginning to look more like O does.
With the same dynamic operating as O. Little to do with 'partisan'.

Lots of people know more about maths than you do. This tygxc person is probably one of them. Nothing conceited about that.

its a never ending game

tygxc tried to claim he knew more math than anyone else on the forum, and then he tried to claim that a statistical estimation method counted as mathematical proof.

that's something you learn is false even before highschool.

i brought tygxc's claims to two mathematicians and both of them reprimanded me for wasting my time with someone as stupid as tygxc.

then, i went to a third recently. he thought that tygxc must be trolling because surely nobody would be so deluded to genuinely believe what tygxc claims.

you should actually look at the underlying content of tygxc's claims and boasts instead of looking at the surface level conversation.

tygxc's complete misunderstanding of math is pretty well summed up by his quote: " Do not let purism stand in the way of progress. I adhere to the mathematical definitions as much as possible."

this is an oxymoron - you either adhere to mathematical proof or you dont.

a game solution by definition is a pure math proof.

again, if you actually engage with the material, i give you 3 posts tops before you're on the same boat against tygxc. just like literally everybody else who wasnt actively trolling.

Or maybe he's using the word 'proof' differently.

An alleged off the record conversation with an unnamed mathematician doesn't count as proof either.

here's tygxc claiming it as a mathematical proof.

I feel we should try to keep this impersonal. In addition, let's ignore @tygxc's eccentric misuse of terminology such as "solve", "ultra-weak solve" and his obstinate refusal to acknowledge the key distinction between a proof and a probabilistic argument. While annoying it is just bad semantics.

Given that, it's worth emphasising that while it isn't solving chess in the well-established unique sense, probabilistic analysis can be interesting and worthwhile. An example of this is Tromp's valid probabilistic procedure for estimating the number of legal chess positions, with clearly quantified uncertainty.

A grand aim which may be more accessible that solving chess might be to determine a valid probabilistic estimate of the chance that chess is a draw. We have not seen this - only estimates that are invalid for well-defined reasons. The question is whether there could be any such method.

It is possible/likely that the very heterogeneous and arbitrary nature of chess would make such an aim impractical. But can we find any way to attack this problem?

again, if it isnt a mathematical proof, it isnt a game solution by definition.

btw 7zx there have actually been several written mathematical proofs against several of tygxc's claims, he's just ignored them.

Yes. I am suggesting consciously focussing on a different goal that isn't as clearly out of reach. The problem is not the computational demand, it's coming up with a procedure that achieves a valid estimate.