Chess will never be solved, here's why

A member of our local club is an ICCM (international master) with a rating of 2530. He was awarded a championship for managing to get two wins out of 14 games, the rest being drawn. Otb I would assess his strength as somewhere between 1450 FIDE and 1550.

In my understanding, regarding a proof that chess is drawn with good play by both sides, they are looking in the wrong place. It's necessary to try to reproduce strategies which could, conceivably, produce a forced win. Therefore they should be looking at games of around 200 moves where white concentrates on keeping the pieces on where possible and useful and also on making one-step pawn moves to produce complex positions where a zugzwang may be possible. I regard the idea that black has a forced win to be immaterial since first it's necessary to look at these positions from the pov or one side or the other to see if the concept is viable. I don't think it's viable but that's what they need to do to make any possible progress.

@13530

"strategies which could, conceivably, produce a forced win" ++ They try to win, but they draw.

"games of around 200 moves" ++ After average 39 moves it ends in a draw.

"white concentrates on keeping the pieces on where possible and useful and also on making one-step pawn moves" ++ They concentrate on the best possible moves, and draw.

"the idea that black has a forced win to be immaterial"
++ White has the initiative, an advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn, not enough to win.
Each further move dilutes the +1 tempo advantage, so the advantage gradually evaporates.

"what they need to do to make any possible progress" ++ They try to win, but draw.

Tell me about it.

@13525

"there is great uncertainty where this is"
++ No, when the thinking time reaches depth 2x, a checkmate in x is found with certainty.

It's basically the same as @tygxc trying to solve chess.

I accept the strong probability or better that what you are saying is true. No problem.

Possibly you would do better to completely ignore the trolls and see what happens. Although I have to say, they seem so dim that they will probably ignore the fact that they're being ignored and continue to ask rhetorical questions, such as "we're waiting for the deductive proof". They aren't very bright so it might be better to ignore them, though.

Syzygy can play the endgame as a whole perfectly under competition rules

how do u know that ?...has a/o ever ran a check on ziggy ?...do we have some value software on it ?

i ran a 10-ply (opening game) against shannons 69+x10^12 report. I got 54+x10^12. still tryn2figure out their parametres. whos right ?...probably them. but some vfyn software still needsta be run right ? [ty github, stack OF ]

Countable is not a synonym of infinite. Something that is not countable may not be infinite. However, the infinite cannot be counted, since it's literally "not finite" and therefore it is not countable since only finite numbers exist as countable.

It's often difficult to tell when you're trying to deceive people and when you are just being honestly but extremely dim. Both possibilities are very real and may even occur simultaneously.

I believe I mentioned that I do not regard you as being what I would call a clever guy. Really, your opinion and those of your supporters, regarding that, are of no value.

Yes I've run many checks. It beats me under competition rules.

and thats sposta be hard to do ?

So goes your refrain towards anybody that knows more than you do on a given subject. It's tired and worn at this point.

Well, I can consistently outplay the Stockfishes under basic or competition rules. You want to try?

I can get Wilhelm to generate some random wins.

Thought you must be speaking to the RATMAR. He's about 300 strength isn't he, yet believes he can think coherently? Drones on about differences between competition rules and other rules as if it really matters? What rules you play by consists of an amendment to a so-called solution. Thought it was he. (him).

Try to find someone who can help you understand that learning what a word means is a necessary precursor to discussing what it refers to. Perhaps your son? I imagine he could help you with basic set theory too, if he ever studied any pure maths.

optimissed i generally avoid indulging in your "discussions" (which consists of people explaining in detail how you are wrong, and you responding with "nuh uh" and insulting them) because i consider them a waste of time, but at this point i just feel bad for you.

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CountablyInfinite.html

https://www.mathacademytutoring.com/blog/cardinality-and-countably-infinite-sets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set

http://5010.mathed.usu.edu/Fall2021/CHendricks/CountablyInfinite.html

https://collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&cmastersessays (i dont think you'll be able to understand this one but its an interesting read)

Again, this has all been explained to you already, but as I predicted, you just said "nuh uh, you cant count infinity because infinity is uncountable" and ignored the nice explanation of set theory presented.

While set theory is (for most people) a college thing, cardinality of differing infinities can actually be approached at even the middle school level.

Finally, the basic question that you have refused to answer: Where are these "theoreticians" that agree with you?

whats hilarious is that when optimissed asks his son about infinities, his son is going to tell him EXACTLY what we have been telling him, and optimissed is going to come back to us and say how he was right all along.

Nah, he won't ask him. How would that boost his ego? [Oh, your last link above is broken].

See you in the afterlife. (Unfortunately we may be destined for the same place,)