Chess will never be solved, here's why

Hola, solo quiero el logro de comentar un foro jajajaj

Regarding the 'editing' of Wiki articles:
-------------------
"Wikipedia has page histories. So every time you make a change to an article (or most other pages), the old version is still there too, and is almost as easily accessible to a reader or to another editor as the current version of the page.

And so if you do something silly, someone else can easily undo it. We call this reverting, and it's one reason we encourage you to be bold.

Of course it's not a blank check. Some users waste so much of other people's time that as a last resort we restrict their editing. Some pages attract so much rubbish, or are so critical to the project, that as a last resort we restrict editing of them. Some material is so damaging that we immediately and permanently remove it.

But all of these are rare, and again, that's why Wikipedia works."
----------------------------------------
Point: 'restrict their editing'.
Wiki can block people. Does.
In other words - Wiki has its head on straight.

thats the point of me telling tygxc to "fix" the wiki articles. the moment tygxc tries to change the wiki to fit his delusion, someone's going to correct it. and tygxc gets to see yet another authority telling him he's wrong.

im pretty sure tygxc knows this too.

@13286

"That was his prediction in 2015... that was almost 10 years ago."
++ Only now his two prerequisites are met: good assistants and modern computers.

tygxc why arent you addressing the question of which mathematical journals accept proof by high probability?

why arent you fixing the wiki page if you know better than it?

why arent you addressing the fact that i had mathematicians personally verify that your arguments are delusional?

you say that quantum computing is going to magically make 10^44 positions possible, when earth only has 10^51 atoms? care to explain that besides vaguely claiming that quantum computing will jump the gap?

why arent you answering anyone's questions and instead resorting to "rebutting" statements taken out of context?

Barring the possibility that he was innumerate, there is no doubt that Sveshnikov was looking not for a proof, but to be convinced. I strongly doubt he would have been foolish enough to have thought what he was proposing was analogous to the solution of checkers. There is a big difference between being convinced and deducing something.

This is actually an example of a new proof technique introduced by @tygxc - proof by ignoring potential counterexamples.

yeah i read the full context of the article in which he makes that statement. sveshnikov wasnt talking about a mathematical solution in the slightest (despite correctly calling a chess mathematical game), moreso levels of analysis, as the methodology described by sveshnickov involved heavy use of opening theory - - of which by definition means its not a mathematical solution.

oh i dont care

Wrong on every count...impressive in its own sad way I guess...

Optimistic about timing but I don't think he's wrong tech keeps improving at an exponential rate and I don't see us dying off any time soon. Intuitively if for whatever reason you had to make a guess would any of you really think its a forced win for white? Not could it be not there is no proof I mean intuitively if there was a full table base what would you expect it to say? Like it feels like pages of arguing over not having a table base yet but does anyone think that a full table base might really be a forced win after years of human theory and databases and engine uses all pointing to a draw? I don't buy the exact math or random quotes this guy spews but the general ideas I agree with. Sure its not solved until solved but I'm pretty sure everyone in the community would be SHOCKED if it was a forced win. Also since ICCF was mentioned i want to point out that they follow different rules and mate in 208 that doesn't use 50 move rule counts as wins. The engines they use probe for these 7 man table base positions to try and claim wins but part of why I believe so strongly that chess cannot have a forced win is the 50 move rule. So I concede there is not yet proof but I also admit I'm 100% on the same train as him I'm convinced its a draw and one day there will be proof while im not as optimstic ill still be alive to see it as him lol.

The first is the most excruciating. It's as if he's never seen an ultra-weak solution of a game.

Regarding tygxc's concession that chess can't be solved with today's technology -
I don't think anybody here has claimed that future major breakthroughs in computer hardware and software could not solve it.
tygxc taking a position that such breakthroughs could solve chess this century
refutes absolutely nothing that is being said to him.
In the year 1800 - people may have claimed that man would never have mechanical flight - but 150 years later jet travel was common.
---------------------------------------
But also notable about tygxc - he holds himself up so much better than the O-person does ... with 'O' furious that tygxc gets a lot of attention and that O thereby keeps failing to make the forum mainly about O.
With 'O' now even uncharacteristically backing off from the forum.
Last time it was 'burned his fingers'.
We'll see a new excuse soon probably.
Irony there: tygxc beats O without even trying or intending to.
So does Lola.
But then - everybody does. With or without so intending.

@Elroch
Don't underestimate tygxc.
That 'blunder' and all his 'blunders' may be intentional.
Plus its funny to me how tygxc keeps demonstrating how the forum continues to be about him and his positions - and demonstrates how to do that with or without intending it - while the O-person pathetically infuriates himself about that and even withdraws for now - being so very fragile and delicate as he'll always be.

tbf O is at least a little self aware, and that holds him back. O also finds it necessary to react to all opposition, while tygxc is purely comfortable letting factual rebuttals go unaddressed.

tygxc remains serene and in control of himself and his emotions. He is unflappable while O constantly reacts poorly to every stimulus.
tygxc defends his unsound positions calmly while O continues to mishandle things even on those infrequent occasions when he's right.

Regarding the last point: I don't think that this will be solved so fast as he claims but why do you think that quantum computers can't solve chess.

I did a quick google search and from what I've read so far quantum computing is not suitable at least right now for the problem of solving chess. But who knows what researchers will discover the next couple of centuries.

@13303

"Also since ICCF was mentioned i want to point out that they follow different rules and mate in 208 that doesn't use 50 move rule counts as wins."
++ Such win claims are allowed in ICCF, but never happen.
ICCF rules are more decisive, but table base win claims do not happen, even if such win claims that exceed the 50-moves rule are allowed. So as Chess is a draw under ICCF rules, a fortiori it is a draw under FIDE Laws of Chess.

"The engines they use probe for these 7 man table base positions to try and claim wins"
++ Table base win claims do not happen, only table base draw claims.

"why I believe so strongly that chess cannot have a forced win is the 50 move rule"
++ In ICCF WC Finals 50-move draw claims do not happen.
An average game ends in a draw in 39 moves, either by reaching a certain draw as agreed by both finalists and their engines, or a 7-men endgame table base draw, or a 3-fold repetition.