Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes ok, I personally don't like the idea that a blunder is different from an error because it's win to loss. But it makes sense to use ty's terminology. Thanks for clarifying.

I really need to work. I've done nothing today except the washing and making coffee and tea for my wife, oh, and talking to the next door neighbour for an hour. She's autistic, apparently, and her younger daughter very much more severely so.

I have really got to make eleven more philatelic auction lots and I'm expecting a visitor in an hour and a half so please excuse me if I call this a day here. I'm not going to make any progress with the others here but please do be aware that tygxc isn't all wrong. They deliberately misrepresent him and he's too proud to show too much concern, which I respect. All the best.

@Elroch not really a draw... you can sacrifice the rook...

"If you're using it in same way, then 114 games all drawn does mean that the odds against the errors all occurring in pairs is astronomical"

I don't think that odds for all of the errors occuring in pairs in these 114 games is necessarily tiny.

My reasoning is this: When A single error, first one of a given IFFC game is made by player 1 and player 2 is their opponent

a) The position was misevaluated and winning variation missed by engines available for player 1, thus the winning path for player 2 is very thin

b)Player 1 and player 2 player are of similar strength with strongest engines available for both

In these circumstances, is it more likely that the winning line found or missed by player 2 in this particular instance?

I'd say it's more likely to be missed, but I'm glad to hear opposing reasoning and thoughts.

Conclusion: an error pair game might be more likely than a single errore game in the IFFC, thus expected rate for drawn games with errors could be higher than for decisive games.

@Optimissed this is a little bit off topic, but how many british swears do you know?

That's going to be difficult when you are sniping and namecalling on a regular basis. Maybe turn a new leaf and stop cozying up to every anti-establishment type you come across...

No wonder you have trouble with "countable".

Just in this thread alone there are dozens of posters who have watched your drivel emerge and become your detractors. The only one here who can compete with that is Tygxc.

Your logic is stunningly bad. They disagree with you because you specifically go out of your way to be disagreeable, and to claim that you are smarter than every single person, institution, authority, etc. The only people on board your delusional train are other crackpots.

If by cabal of trolls, you mean that you have alienated yourself with a large number of individual posters, then that would be accurate.

Correct. Or oppose him. Or both.
In the last batch of posts there was this from him:
"I really need to work"
which translates to mean: 'he's 'working' here. This is his life's work right here.
To constantly and foolishly troll the public forums on this site and then complain about the opposition he thereby inevitably gets.

That's going to be difficult

i dont wanna be his muse i dont wanna be his muse i dont wanna be his muse.....

Yes.
And when I put it to tygxc about today's engines getting five days per move pitted against the strongest engines ten years from now getting twenty days per move - he had no answer.
tygxc wants to pretend there's some kind of 'magic' about five days per move.
Its more of his disinformation.

Lol. You have nothing to fear, believe me. The common usage of the concept of a muse is a form of backhanded misogyny, in any case.

For what it's worth, I agree with tygxc that chess is probably a draw.

I hope it is, anyway - that's kind of the point of the game, isn't it? To see which player can outplay the other, from an equal starting position ...

But I don't consider ICCF games to be "proof" of perfection. They're probably as close as we can get, at the moment ... but "close to perfection" is not the same thing as "solved".

Maybe I'm thinking in absolutes too much here, but I believe there's either a full tablebase ... or there's not.

Know.
Know that there's either a full tablebase - or not.
Plus know that there's Not.
Not even for 8 pieces on board.
------------------
And regarding ICCF games as 'proof' those games could be seen as regression.
Taking us Further from 'proof' of anything except that the engines involved are too similiar to find each other's errors.
An issue not clarified yet is whether those ICCF engines are among those who cannot see that certain positions are draws that most players can very quickly see are draws.
I believe a position was posted here to the converse -
a position that was obviously a win but the engine assigned 'draw'.
But there's no good way to scroll back through 14,000 posts to see if its there.
I did repost a position to the converse - where Stockfish keeps pathetically assigning 'big advantage' to black where its obviously and abjectly a draw.
-----------------------------------------
Point: The strongest engines are so Very Far from 'perfect'.
And Imperfect in another way ...
So Imperfect that the 7 piece tablebases cannot even include castling possibiilities in that project.
Too much for those Imperfect Engines whether because of software or hardware issues or both.

That's like claiming that Quasimodo could win a beauty contest.

its still hilarious how optimissed hasnt realized that thee ghostess is trolling.

no you are completely right. dont mistake tygxc's confidence for actual knowledge.

he's completely delusional with no understanding of what mathematical proof is.

Hi all! Hope you're having a good time.

Please let's try to keep the thread relevant to the theme proposition without resorting to endless quote-requote rude remarks and personal attacks. It's really unpleasant trying to get involved in an interesting discussion while there are so many pointing fingers that lead nowhere and drive the topic away from a creative debate.

Appreciate your understanding, have an amazing rest of the week!

I'd agree with all of that except to emphasise that weak solving of chess (a la Schaefer solution of checkers) is a lot less demanding than strong solving (full tablebase), and hence the principal focus of attention. But also woefully impractical, without dubious speculation about advances in technology.

@14808

"an ICCF WC draw means zero errors" ++ No. But 114 ICCF WC Finals draws mean zero errors.
If there are draws and decisive games, then there are games with 1, 3, even 5 errors.
If there are games with 1 or 3 errors, then there are also games with 2 or even 4 errors.

"This game was a draw - and it had errors in it." ++ Yes. In 2013 there were 20 decisive games, i.e. games with 1 or even 3 errors. Thus there were also games with 2 or even 4 errors.

Most plausible for the WC28 ICCF Finals of 2013 is a distribution 114-20-2-0-0. 
I.e. 2 draws with 2 errors are expected.

"Therefore: ICCF WC draws can still contain errors."
++ Yes, but not if all 114 games are draws and there are no decisive games.
2013 ICCF WC Finals draws can and do contain errors.
2024 ICCF WC Preliminaries, Semifinals, and Candidates draws can and do contain errors.
2024 ICCF WC Finals draws are 99.992% sure to be free of errors.

"114 draws in current ICCF WC games simply means that there are 114 draws in which errors may (perhaps "will") eventually be found" ++ No. If there were a substantial number of games with 2 errors, then there would at least be 1 game with 1 error, i.e. a decisive game.

If there are only a few games with 2 errors, then the present drawing sequences still hold,
as there are not 1 but 5 different lines of defense to draw against 1 e4 and 1 d4.