Chess will never be solved, here's why

Anyone who thinks that there is a fixed exchange rate between time and material that can be part of a proof of the value of chess has lost the plot.

Problems with this are:

1. Even if you could define a tempo, why on Earth would you think they are all equal?
2. Any such exchange rate is going to be dead wrong often
3. There are definitely positions where an "equal exchange" is winning for the material, and positions where it is winning for the tempi.
4. Being wrong once would invalidate a proof
5. Four tempi obviously equal a king via the sequence e3 Qf3 Bc4 Bf7 from the opening position
6. Except they don't - it is easy to find another position where they are not

"+1 tempo is not enough to win: you cannot queen a tempo"

This means nothing since we are not certain that there is no line where that +1 tempo leads to, for example, a forced win of a pawn.

"1 pawn > 2 tempi, 1 pawn < 4 tempi, 1 pawn = 3 tempi"

What position do you refer to when you say "1 pawn?" In the starting position? I'm asking because obviously material count has different value in different positions. For example being up a knight vs a king is worth nothing.

Even in that case the evaluation of say 1 pawn or 0.33 pawns in the starting position is not worth much, since we don't know how many pawns up is enough to win.

Point is, we can't really put a value on that +1 tempi because we don't know where it leads to with optimal play.

I do want to point out to you that a) this has all been explained to tygxc before. b) Tygxc fundamentally refuses to engage logically here. We are starting to theorize that tygxc has a narcissistic delusion similar to terrence howard. c) Those of us who remain on the forum do so not to try to convince tygxc, but to make sure that there is the correct information immediately available besides tygxc so people aren't mislead.

"AlphaZero with only the Laws of Chess as input reached the same conclusions after millions of autoplay games".

If you think every move played by AlphaZero respects this rule, you are crazy. Here is AlphaZero sacrificing 3 pawns sequentially without gaining 3 tempi on any occasion, never mind 9!

You can be sure trillions of other examples could be found with enough effort.

tygxc i cant help but notice how you continue to ignore the fact that i went to IRL mathematicians and had your delusions personally debunked by them.

and dont think we dont notice how whenever we get to the core of your most recent fallacy, you refuse to answer anybody for a day and then try to bring up a new fallacy to some newcomer to the thread.

@13462

"Here is AlphaZero sacrificing 3 pawns sequentially without gaining 3 tempi"
++ You can sacrifice pawns or even pieces or a queen for other benefits but tempi.
In this case the dark square weakness of the black king.
You can sacrifice a whole piece or even a queen to lure the defense away from the king.
That is not the discussion here: the discussion is if +1 tempo in the initial position could be enough to win. It cannot. You cannot convert the +1 tempo to something substantial like +1 pawn or a forced checkmate or forced loss of material. In common gambits +2 tempi do not make up for the loss of a pawn. If +2 tempi cannot convert, then a fortiori +1 tempo cannot either.

Actually, in a way, something like dark square weakness around a king can translate as tempi in that one would be gaining however many tempi it would take to successfully defend the king. So perhaps it's possible to translate any gain or loss in chess in terms of tempi. What do you think, tygxc? I would value your opinion.

@13459

"Even if you could define a tempo, why on Earth would you think they are all equal?"
++ The discussion is not about tempi in general, but about the +1 tempo white is up in the initial position.

"Any such exchange rate is going to be dead wrong often" ++ It is adequate for gambits in openings, i.e. close to the initial position

"There are definitely positions where an "equal exchange" is winning for the material, and positions where it is winning for the tempi." ++ Example?

"Four tempi obviously equal a king" +4 tempi > 1 pawn, that is enough to win

You don't think right for this discussion.

@13460

"no line where that +1 tempo leads to, for example, a forced win of a pawn"
++ If there were such a line, then it has to be fast because of the dilution effect.
If it were fast, then it would have been found long ago.

"What position do you refer to when you say 1 pawn? In the starting position?"
++ The starting position or close to it, like gambit openings.

"we don't know how many pawns up is enough to win" ++ We do know.
+1 pawn near the initial position is enough to win. We know that from incorrect gambits.

"we don't know where it leads to with optimal play"
++ We know. It evaporates from +0.33 to 0.00 by the dilution effect.

still waiting on any deductive proof of any of tygxc's claims.

@13466

"an extra tempo is inadequate to win because the initial position is drawn"
++ It is the other way around:
the initial position is a draw because the extra tempo is inadequate to win.

"Note that the idea of all tempi being equal is absurd too." ++ Tempi are time units of 1 ply.

"Even if you could define what a tempo is." ++ A tempi is a ply.

"Does moving a piece that has been developed count as zero tempi or one?"
++ It depends where it goes. 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1 is -2 tempi.

"would moving a piece to a square it could get to in two moves count as two tempi?"
++ It depends on the square.

"just randomly developing achieves certain equality"
++ The center is more important than development. E.g. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 is a good move because it challenges the center, though it does not develop any piece.

so tygxc, wheres the deductive proof from the axioms of chess rules that chess is a draw?

the tempo valuation is a made up estimated metric. deductive proofs have no such metrics.

I would like to point out to you that from the first moment you arrived here, your arguments have consisted solely of "this has been pointed out to tygxc before and he has failed to understand" and "experts agree with MEGA and disagree with tygxc". I have never actually seen you make a proper argument. A bit like certain others, who pretend they are "policing the forums to protect the vulnerable from misinformation", whereas in reality they are just not very bright people who attempt to control others??

optimissed remember that arguing with feelings, as you are currently doing, isnt accepted in any sort of mathematical journals.

to all observers, optimissed is one of the main trolls. he only values tygxc's "opinion" because he too has been extensively called out on his lies by the normal people of the forum, and besides that, you'll notice how substanceless opti's statements are. it's to the point that we dont even feel the need to correct him as observers always almost immediately recognize optimissed for what he is.

you still havent addressed how you thought a guy was calling me stupid but he then confirmed that he was calling YOU stupid, lmfao.

Let me explain it to you in short words.

No deductive proofs of chess can be made in areas where chess has not been deductively solved.

Long term assessments from any complex positions, including the starting position, haven't been solved. That's what this feeble discussion is about.

Therefore deductive proofs you ask for are impossible and if desired, others more inferential conclusions may be attempted. They can be checked by evidence. Where, therefore, are the deductive proofs that such inferential conclusions are incorrect? The evidence which may be used to deductively form such proofs doesn't exist?

Looks like you've tripped yourself up, are hoist by your own petard etc. Elroch just claimed that tygxc doesn't "think right for this discussion". Well it would seem that Elroch doesn't think right either, since otherwise he would be fair-minded and point out that you don't think right. You are extremely pretentious and so is Elroch, to imagine that both your ideas should be prioritised when neither of you are very bright or very right.

You sound like playerafar. If someone called me that, they're applying it to themselves, automatically. There are only one, two or three bright people here. I'm one of them. You are not one of them.

@13465

"translate any gain or loss in chess in terms of tempi"
++ That is a bold claim. Right now engines translate any gain or loss in terms of pawn units,
so with 3 tempi = 1 pawn you could translate in terms of tempi as well.

However, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 is a good move while it challenges the center, but does not develop any piece into play, so is loss of tempo for the benefit of influence on the center.

1) No deductive proof is possible, based on current knowledge. You should know that.

2) Only a rather dim person would insist on being given something that they knew did not exist, unless they were attempting to deceive someone.

3) Therefore you are either attempting to deceive someone or are rather dim.