^^^ (fyi this is not a complete description as it literally does not address any of the positions)
If ICCF had solved chess, all games could be agreed drawn before starting. The fact that they aren't indicates that the people @tygxc relies on don't believe him.
[It is of independent interest what will happen to ICCF now. Will they continue having tournaments without wins for a while, then get bored and stop?]
@12781
"ICCF snoozefest"
++ That is disrespectful. ICCF games are quite sharp and often end with spectacular sacrifices to end in a perpetual check to secure the draw by 3-fold repetition.
Here is one recently finished game: black accepts 2 poisoned pawns,
is later forced to give up the exchange and saves the draw by 3-fold repetition.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360192
Good example of an EXTREMELY boring game. The "interesting part" has been played hundreds of times, and results to a level position. White's "novelty" came at move 32, and it was a random choice of one out of eight different moves which are evaluated as "0.00" by the engine.
Fair enough, it would merely underline what we already know.
And while there is no GM team solving chess, I agree with the point that if there were a win, there would be no reason it would have to be easy to find. It could exist in a part of the 32-piece tablebase never visited by computers or people.
Yes and of course, this is an hypothetical. I was using the term "solving chess" very loosely.
@12919
"An IM" ++ rated 1761 blitz?
@12918
"White's "novelty" came at move 32, and it was a random choice of one out of eight different moves which are evaluated as "0.00" by the engine."
++ Which only confirms the result arrived at: a draw.
Here is another sacrificial 3-fold repetition draw.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360252
@12917
"The fact that they aren't indicates that the people @tygxc relies on don't believe him."
++ They try very hard to win. Dronov: 'I always play to win'. They do win occasionally in preliminaries, semifinals, candidates. That is how they qualify for finals. They used to win a few games in finals in previous years. Now they finally arrived at 112 draws out of 112 games.
"what will happen to ICCF now" ++ There are proposals to reduce the time control.
"Will they continue having tournaments without wins for a while, then get bored and stop?"
++ Probably. At that point chess can be considered weakly solved.
@12923
"@GYG said that guy is @pfren"
++ Maybe, maybe not. He appears knowledgeable. Maybe too old, too slow. Like me...
I was stronger than pfren is now. Pfren was stronger than I was.
@12917
"The fact that they aren't indicates that the people @tygxc relies on don't believe him."
++ They try very hard to win. Dronov: 'I always play to win'. They do win occasionally in preliminaries, semifinals, candidates. That is how they qualify for finals. They used to win a few games in finals in previous years. Now they finally arrived at 112 draws out of 112 games.
"what will happen to ICCF now" ++ There are proposals to reduce the time control.
"Will they continue having tournaments without wins for a while, then get bored and stop?"
++ Probably. At that point chess can be considered weakly solved.
wow, what a stupid string of statements.
weakly solved means theres a rigorous mathematical proof. any solution is a rigorous mathematical proof, anything else isnt a solution. how hard is that to figure out?
@12919
"An IM" ++ rated 1761 blitz?
Everyone here knows that you wouldnt listen to an IM anyways. after all, I literally already pointed out to you that my refutations to your claims have literally been backed by mathematicians.
"weakly solved means theres a rigorous mathematical proof."
tygxc doesn't seem to be too keen about that one.
@12917
"Will they continue having tournaments without wins for a while, then get bored and stop?"
++ Probably. At that point chess can be considered weakly solved by people who don't know what weakly solved means.
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.
'Solving' chess is such a stupid concept. Yesterday I have won a game playing against a bot. Since the game has reached an end, I therefore have 'solved' chess.
Lots of people that don't understand things label them as "stupid" in order to cope.
dio, a reminder that the guy you are responding to isnt tygxc or optimissed and you should not treat them with the same bluntness/dismissiveness.
Playerafar has already gone down that path don't do the same thing
I've done no such thing.
BC is projecting.
Plus nobody gets 'exemption from criticism' because he/she is not tygxc or Optimissed.
Plus tygxc does infinitely better than Optimissed does.
But then - everybody does.
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.
@12923
"@GYG said that guy is @pfren"
++ Maybe, maybe not. He appears knowledgeable. Maybe too old, too slow. Like me...
I was stronger than pfren is now. Pfren was stronger than I was.
Dude, he may lose to you in online blitz, but he will definitely crush you in classical and likely rapid as well! Classical chess is the best indicator of chess strength. the fact that you used blitz ratings for comparison despite despising blitz yourself in the past is crazy lol
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
@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.
Huh blitz is perfectly fine for progress lol I'm making great progress it depends on the person !
"I have beaten several IMs in over the board classical chess."
That does not mean you are close to IM strength.
"you used blitz ratings" ++ He only plays blitz and bullet.
Look at his rapid on his old account, not to mention his title: @pfren
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
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
Well, since tygxc and pfren are quite old and slow chess players, blitz isn't a good indicator
I dunno kramnik is old ish but he's 3000 blitz without knowing how to premove
Fair enough, it would merely underline what we already know.
And while there is no GM team solving chess, I agree with the point that if there were a win, there would be no reason it would have to be easy to find. It could exist in a part of the 32-piece tablebase never visited by computers or people.