What I think is a lot more likely to be functional that what you think. That's been well proven, over time.
Confirmation bias.
Observation. You're fairly focussed but you make some mistakes and never admit it.
Anyway we've been here before and I don't intent to do it again. You made the daft comment about "not using quotes properly". You mean "as you would prefer".
Confirmation bias.
Observation. You're fairly focussed but you make some mistakes and never admit it.
You mean like trying to pawn off your quoting misadventures? 
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
It's a time-honored tradition at chess.com when the rank and file want to move on from somebody's repetitive blatherings. Often confined to waffles, but any food will do.
Man, you are learning a lot of stuff today. Good for you.
Black to move. This position has been solved, but have you solved it?
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
It's a time-honored tradition at chess.com when the rank and file want to move on from somebody's repetitive blatherings. Often confined to waffles, but any food will do.
Man, you are learning a lot of stuff today. Good for you.
truffles
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
It's a time-honored tradition at chess.com when the rank and file want to move on from somebody's repetitive blatherings. Often confined to waffles, but any food will do.
Man, you are learning a lot of stuff today. Good for you.
Or this:
Hello, What a foolish statement. You can analyze the whole game by using Chess engines or Chess software like Fritz.
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
It's a time-honored tradition at chess.com when the rank and file want to move on from somebody's repetitive blatherings. Often confined to waffles, but any food will do.
Man, you are learning a lot of stuff today. Good for you.
Black to move. This position has been solved, but have you solved it?
Looks like a draw, Z.
Looks like a draw, Z.
After reading "this position is solved" and not "black to mate in 3" or the like, I already determined not to bother analyzing the board .
That is a great thread derailer, though.
Confirmation bias.
Observation. You're fairly focussed but you make some mistakes and never admit it.
You mean like trying to pawn off your quoting misadventures?
I'm happy with the way I answer people and quote them. Coolout obviously has difficulty with it but since he has difficulty with everything, that's only to be expected. I'm sure you wouldn't be trying to prove your own equivalence to Coolout?
Coolout, just look at post #307 and you will see that you were indeed mistaken. You do such things so often that it's obvious to everyone you don't pay attention and then react like a four year old when caught out.
The thing is I don't have to look at any post, because Optimissed is contradicting herself in her own post, regardless of what anyone else says. Or do you have something to add? lol
I react by addressing points made by rebutting and retorting them in every post I make, always trying to stay on topic. You are the one who is on a fake account that doesn't even play games here, whose life has been trolling these forums simply to personally insult the game and its players like a child who never grew up.
One side of her mouth she said chess is a mathematical equation, and out the other side of her mouth she said it isn't. Stating contradictions I find is typical among long time chess players. I'm simply pointing it out. You or Her can choose to clarify, or choose to keep insulting instead which is conceding the point made.
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
If and when you do manage a coherent comment, rest assured, it will be spotted from afar and people will flock to sightsee and to record the memorable occasion.
Keep telling yourself noone reads these threads. The problem with the internet is most normal people stay in the shadows, and very few people are crazy enough to post and comment. Thats why these forums are full of children and loony old bats. There really is no middle ground here, but I do this for the kids and everyone watching.
Your new tagline...
CooloutAC - I do it for the kids
I saw a crazy game in the blog called "Edward laskers best game", and it didn't make sense
...
Chess is indeed an exact mathematical problem. There is a finite set of 10^44 legal positions with subsets of 32, 31... 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 men. There is also a relation 'position (FEN) B can result from position (FEN) A' according to the Laws of Chess. So solving chess is finding a path from the initial position towards either a known 7-men draw, or a dead end of 3-fold repetition.
There are approximately 4.82 x 10^44 basic rules legal positions (FEN - ply count).
You say you plan to solve chess under competition rules.
In that case there there are approximately 7.27 x 10^46 FENs associated with game states (Tromp's number for basic rules must be multiplied by the 151 different values of play count that may be associated with positions that don't exceed the mandatory 75 move rule).
There IS NOT a well defined relation 'FEN B can result from FEN A' under competition rules.
FEN A will be associated with many different situations that can occur in a chess game depending on how the situation is arrived at.
If it's associated with a situation that has been arrived at via four previous situations that match the associated basic rules position then no FEN B can result because the game immediately terminates under the mandatory quintuple repetition rule.
If the same FEN A is associated with a situation that is not so arrived at then it will result in situations with different FEN Bs. But for each such FEN B not all situations having FEN B can be arrived at, because the moves leading to those situations may not be extensions of the moves leading to the situation which is associated with FEN A.
I would call the "situations" I talk about "positions" in the competition rules game (and my interpretation of the FIDE laws is that the two are in general taken to mean the same). You would not, but in that case you cannot Identify positions with the nodes in your search space. It's the number of such nodes that is important in determining the feasibility of a solution based on a forward search. Rather than quibble over the meaning of "position" I'll just refer to nodes (no doubt much to @playerafar's disgust).
If the nodes are defined as a FEN together with the set of basic rules positions that have occurred since and including the last node associated with a ply count 0 FEN and a multiplicity (1-4) for each node, then there IS a well defined relation 'node B can result from node A' under competition rules. This relation defines the game tree (an abuse of language, it's actually a directed graph) and the solution.
The number of nodes in the game tree is therefore the number of equivalence classes of legal PGNs from a ply count 0 position, where PGNs are taken to be equivalent if they result in the same associated basic rules positions each with the same multiplicity and have the same final basic rules position. (The PGNs are also what you need to pass to an engine over the UCI interface if is to function correctly - assuming it's capable of avoiding triple repetitions when it thinks it's winning.)
It's apparent that the number of nodes in the search space under competition rules is vastly hugely humongously greater than 7.27 x 10^46. There is an obvious upper bound of 4.82 x 10^44 x 3^(4.82 x 10^44) but it's very easy to reduce this very substantially by summing over endgame classifications and some further considerations. I did invite you to propose a reduced upper bound with no response. Do I need to do it for you? (Notice nodes beyond the 50 move rule and triple repetition rules are excluded from that upper bound because continuations when these conditions occur can be pruned. Also no factor is included for the ply count because that is the sum of the repetition counts so already accounded for.)
So solving chess obviously depends on the version of chess, The game tree determines the solution and the game trees are different under basic rules and competition rules. In particular your known 7 man draws are different, so you're aiming for different destinations in the two games.
Also the position you posted in #296 is a draw under competition rules, so you should have included a 50 move rule draw under your termination conditions, not to mention a dead position.
But your description is naff to start off with. I can give you any number of paths towards either of the things you mention. If that's all you want to do what are the supercomputers about?
Keep telling yourself noone reads these threads. The problem with the internet is most normal people stay in the shadows, and very few people are crazy enough to post and comment. Thats why these forums are full of children and loony old bats. There really is no middle ground here, but I do this for the kids and everyone watching.
Your new tagline...
CooloutAC - I do it for the kids
Better hadn't. The wrong end of the stick is too easily to hand.
Coolout, just look at post #307 and you will see that you were indeed mistaken. You do such things so often that it's obvious to everyone you don't pay attention and then react like a four year old when caught out.
The thing is I don't have to look at any post, because Optimissed is contradicting herself in her own post, regardless of what anyone else says. Or do you have something to add? lol
I react by addressing points made by rebutting and retorting them in every post I make, always trying to stay on topic. You are the one who is on a fake account that doesn't even play games here, whose life has been trolling these forums simply to personally insult the game and its players like a child who never grew up.
One side of her mouth she said chess is a mathematical equation, and out the other side of her mouth she said it isn't. Stating contradictions I find is typical among long time chess players. I'm simply pointing it out. You or Her can choose to clarify, or choose to keep insulting instead which is conceding the point made.
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
If and when you do manage a coherent comment, rest assured, it will be spotted from afar and people will flock to sightsee and to record the memorable occasion.
Keep telling yourself noone reads these threads. The problem with the internet is most normal people stay in the shadows, and very few people are crazy enough to post and comment. Thats why these forums are full of children and loony old bats. There really is no middle ground here, but I do this for the kids and everyone watching.
Ah here's the context, sorry. You know, if you want to make yourself something for kids to laugh at, that's for you to decide. I know that a lot of people don't read threads and so long as you make noises like "rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish and so therefore your argument was a nil desperandum straw man running dog lackey non sequitur confirmation bias Dunning-Kruger concession statement, so I won rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish" there will be people who'll believe you because people are all different and that's the nature of some of them.
What was dishonest about you though, is you took the time to make posts like this, instead of correcting me. If this is a win for you, you should thank btickler, not yourself. And again, imo, this is still you deflecting and conceding from the points i made, which are still relevant to your post in question. I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
More than one person immediately pointed out your error but you blew us off with "I can't be bothered to actually look at the posts", or "you guys are all just trolls" or other such crap and now complain that nobody explained things to you. Any time anyone does explain something to you you engage in slurs, off-the-subject rants, incoherent babble and repetition of things you have already said 100 times.
To quote Toshiro Mifune in Akira Kurosawa's classic film "Yojimbo", "You can't help fools."
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
It's a time-honored tradition at chess.com when the rank and file want to move on from somebody's repetitive blatherings. Often confined to waffles, but any food will do.
Man, you are learning a lot of stuff today. Good for you.