Chess will never be solved, here's why

I agree.  You can and do regularly draw (faulty) conclusions from (faulty) data.

All the gobbledegook about ultra weekly solving (which is as silly as "semi-strong" if you actually understand the definitions of weak and strong solutions, which are yes/no propositions) is just you making more assumptions that won't hold up.

#2463
Newton may have borrowed from Hooke and he himself acknowledged:
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"
Likewise Einstein may have borrowed from Minkowki and he himself echoed the same phrase of acknowledgement.

Both created science by induction, not by deduction.
Newton did not prove that F = md²x/dt² or F = Gm1m2/r².
Einstein did not prove dilatation of space & time or curvature of space-time.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Their theories have been accepted as true because they explain experimental results.
Newton explained astronomical observations of planetary motions from his theory.
Einstein explained astronomical observations of Jupiter's moons and predicted a certain deviation during the solar eclipse of 1918.

Also Gauss invented most of his mathematics with the purpose of helping to interpret astronomical observations.
He also invented modulo arithmetic to calculate the date of Easter. "Notiones, non notationes"

On the subject of weakly solving chess, I induce from data: AlphaZero autoplay at 1 s/move and 1 min/move, ICCF WC results.

#2464
"All the gobbledegook about ultra weekly solving (which is as silly as "semi-strong" if you actually understand the definitions of weak and strong solutions"
++ I repeat: "ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined, weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions" - van den Herik

A great scientist 'induced' something (but with some valid logic in mind) so any old 'induction' with little or no logic is therefore valid ?
Hahahah. 
Somebody is having a lot of chuckles while people vigorously and rightly but 'vulnerably' disagree.
Some of the things he's skipped over - well perhaps they could be 'induced' to be like quantum particles ...  'winking' out of existence?
Like needed speed of computers ?
'Wink' seems to fit.   

ef is the MOST

FAMOUS

MOVE

EVER!!!

No, the problem is not even the boasting. I was talking about @tygxc 's tendency, in giving answers, to change the subject with another (possibly higher level) one, in order to avoid issues with his theories. This is plainly deceptive, but now he will simply add "deceptive" to the list of insults we have used to address him, just because I didn't mince words...

I mean, for goodness sake, we are not the "Nature" board, but how @tygxc would deal with a journal, if they did not simply ignore him and asked for clarifications and pointed out issues? He would just skip the issues, answer different questions, change subject, repeat the same things and say they are not at his level... What conclusion about him can be drawn from this attitude?

When you're shown to be in error you simply continue posting the same thing. 

You seem to be absolutely incapable of taking in any information.

"What conclusion can be drawn from this attitude?"
That he will get away with it.  And continue to.
What's often interesting in these situations - is whether the person actually believes his own spiel.
My theory is that they usually do - but only for some of the time.  
They have 'cycles'.  Transience.

That's right. 
But he keeps finding slight variations in how to dance around it.

#2469
"we are not the "Nature" board, but how @tygxc would deal with a journal"
++ Haha, I have a fair number of publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I have even refuted one published article in Nature which was retracted afterwards.
#2470
"When you're shown to be in error you simply continue posting the same thing. "
I am not in error. I adopt the generally accepted definition of van den Herik. You are in error trying to force your own personal, erroneous definition.

The definition you give:

weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition

is not generally accepted.

One more time (at least the third time):

The strategy 

Play 1.Qa7

Achieves the game theoretic value for the position (a win for Black) against any opposition.

So, according to your definition, the strategy is a weak solution for the position.

As I already said, finding an infallible way for a player to lose is not the generally accepted definition of a weak solution.

My definition:

weakly solved means that for the initial position either a timely strategy has been determined for one player that achieves a win against any opposition, or a timely strategy has been determined for both players that avoids a loss against any opposition. 

is the generally accepted definition.

What is erroneous about it?

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously if you don't know what you're trying to do in the first place?

l suppose one can say whatever they like about themselves, but we only judge for what we read here, as you said. BTW, I asked you before, whether you could provide a peer-reviewed paper supporting your theory and you said you cannot find any. Have you already experience of publishing? Well then, why don't you write such a paper? Or have you already written it, but no one accepted to publish? Anyway, everyone will be free to compare the quality of your inductions and deductions with what can be found in scientific papers and textbooks and judge with their own mind.

To me your post just confirms that instead of really addressing some questions raised on your reasoning, you try to distract and impress people, to have they say: "he's not questionable, ipse dixit", that for sure is not scientific. A couple of questions I asked you, are still pending. Would you like to answer them with more than ten words and without simply repeating yourself, instead of flaunting your credentials?

It is already happening something like that, in ICCF games, where engines are allowed. I think it's possible to avoid the "ruin" just reducing the time per move. Until chess is solved, an engine is just a tool that extends our capabilities. Furthermore, if such implants will be realized and commercialized, they will likely be banned from OTB competitions for a while and then they will likely find a way to disable them for competitions. I am not worried about that, nor to have chess solved. There are other things to be worried about, like war, global warming...

<<everyone walking around with Stockfish in their brains will>>

... obviously, that would make someone insane: but since they'd have to be insane in the first place to have such an implant, there wouldn't be any change at all. It would also kill them very quickly and so the problem wouldn't last too long.

"Elon Musk is working on Neuralink, which is a quasi-telepathic CPU brain implant. Testing is going on now and the first test subjects are planned for next year. Solving chess isn't going to ruin the game, everyone walking around with Stockfish in their brains will."

Such implants could drive somebody insane perhaps. 
Or into dementia (similiar). 
Or related - expedite Alzheimer's disease which apparently - like cancer ... anybody might get if they live long enough. 
(Dr. Leonard Hayflick is known for the Hayflick limit - which sets a kind of limit on human longevity because various DNA molecules can only divide properly only so many times.  Like in the lining of the intestines for example.  This limit makes 120 years old and beyond very unlikely.)
Relevance to forum topic:  Nobody ever lives long enough to care about 'solving all of chess' ... or hey maybe that's not the case. 
Some people in the formal solving projects are Getting Paid right ??

Several decades ago I read of an experimental device that was designed to counter 'depression'.
It would send micro electrical impulses into the subject's 'limbic system'.
Which is part (or parts/aspects) of the brain. 
Countering awful sensations of negative emotion and mental distress and severe depression that the subject person was chronically having.
I don't know if it 'got  developed'.    Could be googled.

There was some research on rejuvenating/replacing/adding to grey cell brain tissue on living human subjects.  (note that human brains forever stop replacing lost grey cell tissue - after early childhood ends.)
That research/experiments got outlawed in the US at that time. 
Yes - could get links on that too probably.

People have strange ideas about technology ...first, it's not going to be "telepathic".  It will be a neural interface that is just the next logical step in interaction.  Why should you press little buttons on your phone's calculator app to multiply 1234 x 5678 when you could have a mental trigger that activates your implant, then just think "1234 x 5678" and have it return the answer instantly as if you just did it yourself?

This is mankind's future...and eventually, your consciousness will be "uploaded" and your mind will be effectively immortal, while your body (or bodies) will be temporary tools you utilize, ala the Netflix series Altered Carbon.  If you prefer Star Trek as an analogy, then mankind will be the Borg, not The Federation.  

By the way - some fighter aircraft pilots have had devices in their expensive hi-tech helmets that monitor their brain waves.
Example:  There's suddenly a big increase in corpus callosum activity in the pilot's brain - and his commanders are alerted by the helmet hardware radioing them. They're thus informed that he's 'got a problem on the job'.
So they order him to return him and his jet to base.
Apparently - that's not science fiction. 
The technology for that has been around for a while. 
Is it in practice now ?  I don't know.  Maybe they had a lot of problems with it - I imagine they would have.

Side note:  the corpus callosum is primarily white matter I believe - not grey cell tissue.  Its connections - as opposed to where brain tissue 'votes' - which is in the grey cells.  Cortex.  'Cortical areas'. 
Yes - just while the subject of 'brain implants' is being discussed.

I agree it's not going to be telepathic. However, I'm pretty confident that our brains do use forms of telepathy in the way they operate. Many people believe telepathy to be non-existent or even impossible. Others understand that it's real. There's a natural problem with understanding it's real because it can tie people up in knots when they get an inkling it's real. Often it would be better if they never had that thought. It can actually send people mad. However, those who do understand it and can use it deliberately are at a great advantage compared with others who don't. It wouldn't show up in a place like this and it would only be incrementally advantageous in normal life but in times of great peril, it can assuredly make a great deal of difference. Knowing how to use your mind rationally and intuitively at the same time is of great benefit, especially in a leadership role.

I can think of one or two people who are very rational and not intuitive at all. That often means they're using their reason correctly but wrongly ... i.e. from the wrong premises. I don't mean you.