Chess will never be solved, here's why

bruh drama here also. Well i will definitely watch

The Guy definitely projecting his projecting again. Already.
Why is he here? What is the cause of him being here?
Apparently its: he's not blocked here.

And mentioning. President Jimmy Carter died yesterday.
At over 100 years old. Rest In Peace.
JC did play a little chess.
Did he 'solve' the game of chess?
Depends on how you define solving.
He didn't invest too much time in the game.
Part of enabling him to be a successful naval officer and businessman and family man and president of a big country.
Chess will always be 'solved' by those who don't over-invest in the game?
Lots of range in that word 'solved'.

There's a truck-sized hole in your logic...I never left. I know, I know...you're one of those people that believes when they are not around the universe ceases to exist. Other than a couple of malcontents from your own mold, it was quiet and peaceful with you gone.

You're barking up the wrong tree, as usual. I have a life and a support system that allows me to easily suffer through people like you. You can run away and come back a hundred times, makes no difference.

At least you've not snuffed it. I was getting worried.

I checked on this thread to make sure tygxc wasnt spreading misinfo and was sadly disappointed.

"They assume it has to be a mathematical proof but that's only possible when scientific observations can be turned into mathematical expressions"

is objectively wrong, the rest is similarly incorrect rambling.

mathematical proofs are derived only from axioms and logical steps.

If what I'm saying isn't the widely recognized truth, optimissed could provide some math works that explicitly disagree with this claim.

but he wont, because he cant.

he'll offer some flawed reasoning that'll take a few paragraphs, and make desperate excuses as to why he isnt providing any sources to support his claim, but the end result will be clear, because as much as he blusters, when the chips are down, he can find no one to support him. I predict with complete certainty that he will prove my claim.

@playerafar I do remember the zermelo fiasco. it was funny seeing optimissed say that the mathematical proof of the complete opposite of his stance didn't apply to chess when it was literally designed with chess in mind lmfao.

I already solved it, lol.

Latest Stockfish version is actually NOT very far from doing it.

Maybe add another 2000 elos and perfect play will be reached.

If the team adds some 50 points each year, Stockfish will solve chess at around 2064.

By that time aliens will have landed on earth.

Stockfish nearly solved it.

It plays strategic chess ALSO at a very high level, BETTER than GMs.

You can learn a lot from Stockfish in chess strategy.

Hi MEGA!
And Happy New Year.
Yes - tygxc still absent. I myself don't miss him.
You were way too much for him.
But another reason I think he's absent is that in the old days - with both him and the O-person here - 'O' made tygxc look good by comparison. Once O was long-term muted though -
tygxc became much more isolated and his arrogance became more exposed.
MEGA - some things to note:
Lyudmil has 'solved' chess.
Elroch expects aliens to have landed on earth by 2064.
By then I'll be long gone but you'll be around.
Aliens. Aren't they already here?
Lets see ... Musk. Some kind of android ...

It doesn't work like that. First off, you need to read up on Elo ratings, they are a completely relative measure. Second, guessing 2,000 Elo and calling that "very close" is silly. Engines have taken 25 years to go up about 1,000 Elo, and because Elo ratings *are* relative and top engines have only a handful of shoulders to stand on anymore to go up the ladder, the next 2,000 Elo will probably be even slower.

50 years in engine time is an eternity. It's only for solving chess that 50 years is just a drop in the ocean.

It is not clear that there is another 2000 Elo - a perfect player could be weaker. A perfect player might have an Elo of less than 4000. As I explained, a perfect player could have an Elo little higher than its flawed opposition if it was designed in a certain strange way. The Elo of the player I described would depend on who it played! It would get just over 50% against any strong player, human or engine. A different perfect player more like current engines, that both played correctly and makes it maximally difficult for the opponent would have a much higher rating (except if it got it against the first perfect player - they would each score 50% against each other).

There are two only loosely related scales of quality of play. One is game theoretic accuracy - the frequency of blunders. The other is how difficult a player makes it for the opponent - practical chess. We implicitly assume these two factors are directly related - empirically they are, for normal humans and engines - but this is very far from true in general.

Thank you for being a tit.

Chess will never be solved. Players can throw a couple of 800 rating moves in the opening in a serious game and all hell breaks loose. Chess is for humans, not for engines.

Japanese Robots can outrun and outshoot Messi or Ronaldo but that's not really the point.

An illustration of @Elroch's last point that you can try yourself.

A player who plays the top Syzygy moves from a position covered by Syzygy plays perfectly.

Now try winning the following position as White, (a) against the top Syzygy Black moves, (b) against your latest version of Stockfish.

I'm pretty sure you'll find SF a harder prospect than Syzygy.

I managed mate in 8 against Syzygy's top Black moves but failed to mate altogether against SF, so if SF and Syzygy (top moves) were playing in a pool of people like me from that position, SF's ELO would work out a lot higher than the perfect Syzygy (top moves).

(The same would not be the case against the Lomonosov tablebase if they hadn't carelessly lost it.)

Into a home?

Funny how wrong the first couple comments in this post are. Guy saying cloud computing could solve chess if someone just paid right now. LMAO.

Not the point of what? The topic? It isn't asking if players have already solved chess in practical play, nor if they necessarily will.