Chess will never be solved, here's why

Not sure it can compete with 'pretty sure I know more' by 'the other guy'.
Maybe they need to 'peer review' each other.

#2337
"That's not weakly solving chess."
++ It is. That is how Checkers and Losing Chess have been solved.

One's argument: "I know more ..."
the other: "but my chess rating (uh oh he's lower) and IQ ..."
Result - they're both wrong - and others display much more accuracy.

Speaking of ratings - a guy who just posted here a few minutes ago - he's rated in the 2400's.  Just mentioning.  But he's not like either of those two.

Lasker - Bottvinnik - Euwe ... didn't let the game beat them.
Fischer - it didn't work out so well ...

I don't mind the Shannon number as long as it refers to what Shannon meant it represent.

I don't know who "accepted" it as an estimate of the number of legal games. Presumably someone who hadn't read Shannon's paper properly. "Accepted" is not necessarily the same as "correct".

The fact is it's out on a scale similar to @tygxc's number of legal positions..

And apart from that it's now infinite under basic rules, (but not for decades - only since 2017).

There is no progression from 10^120 to 10^44.5. Tromp doesn't use Shannon's number.

It is simply misinformation and antisocial to propagate it. It's already been quoted at least three times in this thread alone as the number of legal games.

But whether or not forced checkmate is available in a game (and what moves achieve it) depends on whether or not the rules are in force in many cases.

So how can the former be sidelines and the latter not?

Restating what you're meant to prove and inviting me to prove it myself don't meet the challenge.

I hope (possibly forlornly) that you can understand that.

The challenge was to prove or convincingly demonstrate that a single position in Tromp's sample could not be reached by a game with >50% accuracy.

You haven't even managed the latter for the game you actually suggest for the position you actually suggest. You have rather a long way to go.

(It's not relevant to the topic, of course, because most of the play you will generate with your proposed method won't have an accuracy >50% anyway and accuracy is not a requirement for a solution - it's just for interest.)

You have an interesting definition of antisocial .  If you are counting occurrences, then perhaps it's a sticking point with you, but that's not anti-social behavior on my part.

There's nothing wrong with it.  There's no direct progression, nor is there any real propagation.  It's an observation that makes a point about somebody's methodology, not an attempted proof.

Well, there's nothing wrong with it apart from the index 120, I suppose. Nothing wrong with @tygxc's estimates on that basis either.

There's never been anything wrong with him initially proposing them...that's not where the problem lies.

A lot of people come up with invalid figures. The problem is continuing to post them when they've been proved wrong. The internet spreads them very quickly.

"It is simply misinformation and antisocial to propagate it."
But he doesn't see it that way.  The guy doing it.
He's not going to.  Not going to see it that way.
Instead - its 'knows more' and vindicates 'Sveshnikov'.
Plus - the soft guy hard guy stuff is making him look good again.
The other guy had gone quiet for a while.  
Neither of them seems to realize that 'am better' or 'know more' is part of the mismatch where the others always come out on top.
Even without intending any 'contest'.

I was referring the ubiquitous "number of chess games = 10^120". I think in this case @tygxc is blameless.

Its still a sideline.  You've assigned an interpretation of that word not intended by me.
Apparently the 'authorities' have misinterpreted castling as a sideline - but shouldn't.
If you consider more carefully the definition of checkmate on the board - you may understand this better.
Its not that simple though.
That's why I was careful to qualify in my posts about the mistakes of binary A or B in 'solving'.
I also pointed out that the 50 move rule could be addressed from the position from which the count starts.
In every position considered -the computer could address the availability of checkmate within 50 - or beyond 50 - or beyond the default computer time allotment for the computer.
Three results - instead of multiplying the positions by 100 ply.

I addressed those and other points several posts back - but you seem to have skipped them.

Do you really think every single position should be multiplied by 100 because of possible relevance to the 50 move rule?
Yes I know you didn't say that.  But the question is put anyway.

I'm not claiming its valid or invalid.  The idea of that 100.

If you're saying that the other side's strategy is affected in that the issue and result depends on whether they can delay checkmate and captures and pawn moves to satisfy a 50 move draw and that therefore affects 'solved' ...
then you could confirm that.
I think that's what you're saying.  Just not sure. 

hey lol

No problem. If you don't want anybody to look like a fool, perhaps you should persuade your friend or ally playerafar not to make general comparisons between the intellectual abilities of contributors here. Such comparisons could end in embarrassment and that would be a shame. He's too far gone to be embarrassed about anything so maybe have a word with him?  Obviously, if he tells me that there's no comparison between the abilities of any person here and my own and yet he's got it the wrong way round, I could ignore it and wait for another contributor to correct him and ask him not to be so bad mannered. However, that isn't going to happen, is it. So I just told the truth, which most people outside this jolly group won't find at all surprising in its content.

What does it mean in terms of intellect when somebody is repeatedly told something, like "these two don't get along" or "these people are not part of the same group", but it never sinks in?

Chess ratings - IQ - degrees - 'no comparison' - the 'cabal' - all such tactics are pathetic and actually intellectually feeble.
while at every instance its like its a mismatch every time ...
the 'am better - know more' duo score zero ..  others:  2000 or whatever.
Maybe we'll also get 'you're either for me or against me' attempts at imposition - digital A or B again.
'Infighting'.  Claims about cliques and cabals while desperately trying to form them himself.  Projections of his projections.
Complaining about the situations he keeps causing for himself.  
It appears to be unique in the forums.

@MARattigan
Thank you for that reply.
It might be good to scroll down to these two lines and adress them first:
You also posted  "Confirmed - I posted examples for you"
The key word there is 'Confirmed'.
One might be tempted to post in-between text before seeing and considering the further context or whatever further below.

"FIDE doesn't refer to castling as a sideline - not in the laws at any rate. You'll need to explain that."
I didn't say that.  I said something else. 
I don't need to explain something I didn't say. 

Regarding your diagrams that you've posted twice - with two Kings and a rook - 
I appreciate you taking the time to do the diagrams - 
but perhaps it would be better if you simply articulate your points about that in the fewest possible words.
If you really do understand it - you would have no difficulty doing so probably.
But please read further first - before considering response.

You also posted  "Confirmed - I posted examples for you"
The word there is 'Confirmed'.
I attempted to paraphrase the point or points that you seemed to be attempting in several posts.
But then you said 'Confirmed'.
Is that the point or points you're trying to express through the diagrams?
If you Confirm that also - then we could see that as progress.
I articulated it verbally.   Is that now 'taken care of' to now be built on ?

Regarding multiplying positions by 100 - as 100 positions because of the possibility as to where they stand in the 100-ply 50 move process ...
I believe we could make further progress with that.
If you're suggesting that's necessary for each position in chess -
and it actually is - then so be it ...
but I'm suggesting that needs further evaluation as to whether to implement that or discard it or leave it in paradox and controversy.

Then maybe you should check numbers better, instead of firing them like a machine gun; deal adequately with whichever of the many objections moved to your facts and figures, before moving to the next one, instead of trying to "beat" your opponents in simul with your "succint" but insufficient explanations, don't you think?

(The words I edited in red are clearly a repetition) We too have patience, and you appear to us unable or unwilling to understand. The problem is not that number per se; it is that you will know (and when I say "know" I mean "by proof") how much of the hypothesized search space has been searched, after the search, not before. You, instead, make basically no difference between your hypotheses and facts not yet occurred.

I for sure do agree with you on that and never stated the contrary.

Well you see you are no worse than anyone else at insulting. Some of your insults are more oblique, like the allusion at people's understanding and their ratings. And as I said, your way to mix facts and opinions as they were the same thing is insulting per se imho.

I think that no number of opponents would ever convince you that you are wrong, so I wonder what criterion you use, other than yourself, to prove you are wrong. Of course, you could be right and all the others wrong, but people found (or think they have found) an awful lot of errors in your theory, not just one or two, and you think all them are not objective while you are. Fine, but I think we all have to discuss more about how "objectivity" can be defined too, otherwise anyone can say s/he is more scientific than anyone else. It would be quite a paradox, you see.

I think you actually do a couple of those things, but a part from accusing, is that what unscrupulous lawyers usually do?

Common sense is an evaluation function and heuristics are nothing special: they guess no less, but you want to use them to decide a priori which nodes are not worthy of calculation.

It's shocking that you are shocked, because I am not just one of those who thinks it must be done, in order to claim chess weakly solved: I think you are basically the only one, in and out this forum, who thinks otherwise.

After spending 60 hours to add to the search only 4 candidate moves for white and one child for each of them (so you said). So after five years how many nodes will have been searched?