Chess will never be solved, here's why

As well as this crucial lack of knowledge, you have been inconsistent yet again. You can't make your mind up whether chess has been solved or is about to be solved! Both are definitely wrong.

I dunno optimissed projects less than you do even if he gets more annoying sure everyone projects a little but compared to how you try to insult everyone else to win arguments considering opimissed is obvious at least ,

you are not ....

@12929

"make your mind up whether chess has been solved or is about to be solved"
++ The present 112 draws out of 112 ICCF WC Finals games are enough to consider chess as ultra-weakly solved. The effort is larger than what Schaeffer did to weakly solve Checkers.

The 112 draws out of 112 ICCF WC Finals games are at least part of the weak solution of chess: redundant and thus fail safe, but not yet complete.

@12932

"he will definitely crush you in classical"
++ I have beaten several IM in over the board classical chess.

"Classical chess is the best indicator of chess strength" ++ Yes.

"you used blitz ratings" ++ He only plays blitz and bullet.

"despising blitz yourself"
++ Blitz is bad for progress. I only play it to see how slow I have gotten.

Like I would've liked to see tygxc stick to rapid at least he tried it out though !

Also ratings don't mean everything cause I could probably beat an im in 30|10(most likely cm level)

Some ims expecaly when you think slower struggle in blitz ,blitz can be an indicator of strength and it is better than rapid hear on chess.com but it still isn't perfect

Huh blitz is perfectly fine for progress lol I'm making great progress it depends on the person !

I have beaten a gm before ,does that mean I am gm level

No that was playing style differance I just had decent playing style

I am not even close to im level (getting there tho ) I am maybe close to cm or nm level strength

I dunno kramnik is old ish but he's 3000 blitz without knowing how to premove

@12936

"That does not mean you are close to IM strength." ++ I did not say that, I was not even FM.

"Look at his rapid on his old account" ++ OK. I never argued here to be right because of my higher chess rating or because of my higher math level.

BC you are beginning posts with 'dunno'.
That's correct. You don't know.
No need for me to read your posts like that further as contradicting yourself subsequently by pretending you do know isn't worth reading.
You try So Hard to be annoying - but keep failing.
Somehow - you begin truthfully with 'dunno' - but then mess it up.

Elroch right on both points - about tygxc being wrong on both points.
But tygxc isn't afraid. Not ever. Once more into the Breach!

@12943

When I got FIDE rated, you had to be 2200+ to get a FIDE rating. CM did not yet exist.
All on the downhill road.

Sigh yet you only want people to argue with you or not talk about you while projecting your opinions on everyone else to supposedly "win " I don't know what your objective is though anger people that's my best guess if so you so a good job of it ?

If you can project to everyone about their problems you can't just pretend to ignore them like a jerk that's called "hypocrisy " your just a hypocrite

And there's the 'sigh' again from BC.
I caught the word 'project' after that. Didn't read the rest of it.
I haven't projected once BC.
Unlike O and unlike you I have zero need to be dishonest.
At the beginning - you didn't get it about Optimissed and tried to foolishly compare him with Dio.
Then you slowly caught on about O.
You realized he was much worse than you thought.
But continued your blunder of trying to make that to be about others.
You failed to correct the rest of your spiels.
Is early chess skill making you conceited?
-----------------------------------------------
Much later you caught O trash-talking mpaetz and rebuked O for that.
In his insecurity - he tried to intimidate you suggesting you're an alt.
Trying to 'retaliate'.
A pathetic tactic he often uses.
But it didn't work. All of a sudden he gets himself muted by chess.com.
Point: It wasn't about me. It wasn't about Dio.
But all the time you try to make things as being about something else that they're not.
Keep messing up.
Maybe that'll 'work' somehow - 2000 years from now.

But tygxc is the 'foil'.
A kind of engine of illogic that stimulates these 'solved' forums.
He provokes others to make the 'real' comments about the difficulties of solving chess.

just because tygxc is catastrophically horrible at logical deduction doesnt mean they arent a great chess player/evaluator of chess abilities. by trying to argue on that point you guys are giving his completely fallacious arguments wiggle room they do not deserve

Easy breezy, we just need to mine all chess games instead of Bitcoin.

tygxc's illogic is constantly interfered with by good people here including yourself MEGA.
Perhaps you rightly believe that tygxc isn't nearly as transparent as O is.
Yes - kids might be more vulnerable to tygxc than to O in an obscure context regarding tygxc exaggerating the strength and 'proving ability' of chess engines and his related math illogics - and then being obstinate when talked to about that. But aside from that tygxc is innocent. Apparently honest about everything else. Unlike O.
---------------------------
tygxc clinging to his invalid positions is like a tiny grain of sand in a big beach of denialisms of climate science - denials of vaccination - flat earthism and so on. tygxc doesn't do those things. He's clean.
Does tygxc know what's motivating him to continue as he is?
I think he likes the forum topic. He finds it interesting.
I'm not speaking for him. He has said so.
He wants the discussions to pertain to that.
That makes him a billion times better than 'O'.

Stockfish blunders in 6 and 7 piece table base positions

then SF shouldnt be calcing out 6 to 7 piece TB positions. it should turn it to a rigid solutionist like sygyzy right ?

so. does it ?

Stockfish has these things that in software we often call "settings"...and you can choose whether Stockfish will use a tablebase or not.