What will happen if chess got solved?

IG - hi.
There is actually much much proof of the Big Bang.
Its called red shift.
Proof of a very massive explosion a long time ago.
If you don't understand red shift then you won't see it as proof.
But its inescapable.
To understand red shift properly -
you have to understand the most basic energy equation.
Which is not E=m(c^2) but rather is wavelength x frequency = c (the speed of light).
And you also need to understand about Doppler effects named after the great Austrian scientist Christian Doppler.
And you need to understand a bit about spectral signatures too.
----------------------------
Red shift all over the cosmos is gigantic proof of a gigantic Big Bang.
Its more than a theory.
The actual mistake that is commonly made is to conclude from there that the Big Bang is 'the universe'.
Which doesn't follow.
People perhaps sense that so that's why so many tend to reject the Big Bang.
Since it will never be proven whether the universe is infinite or finite (whether in size or mass or age) then claims that the Big Bang is 'the universe' become silly.
People do try to claim a universe finite in age based on 'Entropy' arguments including those put out by Eddington. But multiple big bangs in past present and future elsewhere and elsewhen - knock that right out.
-----------------------------------------------
In fairness - when scientists refer to the Big Bang as 'universe' they could be abbreviating from 'observable universe'.
So when they mistakenly say 'universe is expanding' that refers to the Big Bang which is obviously expanding. Known because of the enormous red shift evidence of galaxies all over the place moving away from each other.
But there's no way to prove there aren't an infinite number of other Big Bangs out there in other places - happening in the past and present - and to happen elsewhere in the future too.
--------------------------------------
Why do people want to believe 'There can be Only One' .... ?
Because of mankind's narcissism.
Its related to the motivations of geocentrism - although a different thing.
And wanting there to be Only One is a powerful psychological thing and means that movies like Highlander make a lot of money.

lmfao tygxc is there literally nothing that will convince you away from your delusion?

literal mathematicians have debunked your nonsense. you know this.

MEGA - consider this blunder-post by Optimissed ...
I quoted it in the other forum and gave link and page info.
"Optimissed wrote: I wonder if tygxc is deliberately winding you up, same as I am? It could be an explanation."
Its ironic that in trying to 'wind people up' its they who get wound up.
tygxc revealing that recently - although he usually does a much better job of concealing it than O does.

the times he addresses me are absolutely FILLED with annoyance at me. tygxc is 100% believing himself to be some prophet, spreading the "truth" despite everyone else's outrage.

@303

"the humans can't offer anything beneficial other than opening choices"
++ That is vital: computers have a problem with positions that exceed 26 men.

"just follow the top computer move every time" ++ That is not what they do.
On the contrary, they look for lines that in the long run defy the computer evaluation.

@304

"how helpful are 2800 humans really going to be in partnership with 3600 Elo bots"
++ The ICCF WC Finalists are not even rated 2800 over the board: ICCF GM Chytilek is over the board IM rated 2424. Correspondence chess requires different skills from over the board play.
There is no clock ticking. You do not need to remember anything: you can look it up. You do not need to calculate variations: the computer does that. Long term planning and strategy beyond the calculation horizon of the computer are what matters.

For example it has been demonstrated that computers are bad at checkmating KNN vs. KP when they have no table base access and the checkmate lies beyond their calculation horizon. The human Troitsky figured all that out before computers even existed.

"this isn't an equal partnership"
++ It is. The computer patches up the human weakness at calculating, and the human patches up the computer's weakness at long term strategic thinking and planning.

"That is vital: computers have a problem with positions that exceed 26 men."

So if chess was "solved" why couldn't we just make the board slightly bigger (like 10x10) and give each side an extra Knight and Bishop and Pawns? Problem solved, and we still have unsolved chess.

I agree that this kind of Comp+Human vs Comp+Human chess does seem very very different from normal chess.

@310

"So if chess was solved why couldn't we just make the board slightly bigger (like 10x10) and give each side an extra Knight and Bishop and Pawns?"
++ That would be a different game.
For example Checkers (8*8) has been weakly solved, but Draughts (10*10) not yet.

you'll notice that tygxc doesnt actually address any of the key points and in fact ignores all of them.

tygxc has cited ICCF interviews before. Every single time they contradict what he claims they say.

Hmm?

the ICCF discussion points by tygxc are all red herrings because they are by definition unverified play. Unless an invariant is defined, a solution to chess is by definition a completed game tree with every single branch of one or both sides (depending on the type of solution).

the ICCF games are only single lines of play, so by definition are not verified/rigorous.

tygxc continually avoids this fact, despite it being pointed out to him dozens upon dozens of times. Once, he even tried to claim a merriam webster definition for "proof" when we pointed out how his "proof" (based on human intuition and a few engine results) is not the mathematical type.

because of tygxc's lack of logical rigor, many of his statements logically contradict eachother.

for example, depending on the day, tygxc will say that chess has been proven to be a draw, but then on a different day will say that it isnt solved. mathematically a solution is a proof, so that is contradictory. (fyi tygxc's "proof" is just assuming that the games played in ICCF are perfect, and assuming that the conventional/engine evaluation of the starting position is correct)

It is advised that you, @NoemiS05, and any others involved not waste your time validating tygxc's fantasy in any way. I only stay on chess solution forums to make sure people's time do not get wasted by tygxc, and there are a few others who also take turns debunking tygxc.

you may also see a user going by optimissed, but itll be clear to you how he doesnt address anything anyone says and is just waving hot air.

tygxc likes to downvote my posts because he cant address any of what I've said.

Chess was made for humans and not for machines and will stay for humans and with humans. Computers are also perfect while doing Mathematics calculations and we keep having kids playing around the world with 2+2=4.

You're not trolling MEGA.
But tygxc pretends that you do.
Notice that tygxc never says anything about O's trolling.
tygxc complains about you and punchdrunk discussing probability while tygxc ignores Optimissed's constant trolling.
Its obvious hypocrisy by tygxc.
But - and on the other hand tygxc still continues to look very much better than the O-person.

Hmm.

Interesting.

Hmm.

Interesting.

Fascinating.

Npc

Ps:you started this

You have down graded from NPC to just a bot