Chess will never be solved, here's why

@MARattigan, I have to correct one claim I made about the relevance of repeated positions. I haven't found the post I made, but I believe I misstated the relevant point.

If we imagine the forward part of a candidate drawing strategy (a la solution of checkers) iterating through passes that are the number of half moves since the starting position, generating all the positions it needs to deal with (until branches reach the tablebase), then if the opponent of the strategy has the opportunity to play a move, that move can be ignored only if the position it reaches lies in the set of earlier positions that have led to that position, rather than in the entire set of positions that has been reached at an earlier half move.

Another way to think of it is that any opposing move that creates a loop in the forward analysis graph can be ignored (there is not necessarily a loop if the position has merely been reached at a smaller number of half moves by a different route).

I hope by some miracle that is clear (or becomes so after some pondering) to someone else (despite its less than crystal clear expression)!

     How many posts lambasting others for superior attitudes and boasting of intellectual prowess do you suppose it will take to eliminate such behavior here? Endless recriminations and responses to slights, real or imagined, don't seem to have had much effect so far. The "he started it" mentality of children's squabbles is particularly inelegant.

Got to say @wyatteldred's post was an improvement on some recently.

So in your world, making an aspersion about Wigan is somehow dire and much worse than just calling people idiots outright as you do on a regular basis?

Elroch is protected by secret forces.  I am protected by those same forces according to your previous diatribes.  You, meanwhile, are a crusader for justice, and never attack anyone, being in fact a paragon of virtue and enlightenment for everyone around you to admire.  It's all very complicated and dramatic, but Occam's Razor makes short work of the whole narrative.

Ahhh, so then by extension Mpaetz is also protected by the powers that be?

In the last 8 posts....not a word about chess.  This makes 9, I guess. 

11......and counting.

But let's get back to chess......I'm just wondering if it's a sport.....and if there's luck involved. 

You should be particularly happy about this...it's the only reason you are still around.

@5041
"I find those quite easy too."
++ Very cunning.
However, for every such position with left / right symmetry, where the Tromp count is only a factor 2 off and the Gourion count is spot on,
there is a pawnless position with 8-fold symmetry, where the Tromp count is a factor 8 off and the Gourion count is a factor 4 off.
So generally the Tromp count is a factor 4 too high and the Gourion count is a factor 2 too high for the purpose as a starting point for estimating the number of positions involved in weakly solving chess.

The mantisse does not really matter, try to get the exponent right first.
None of the 56011 sampled positions Tromp found legal can result from optimal play.
Look at the 3 random samples https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking

In all 3 there are underpromotions to rook or bishop from both sides. Underpromotion to rook or bishop only make sense to avoid stalemate, i.e. to avoid a draw. It makes no sense for both sides to avoid a draw. So at least one side must have erred by underpromoting instead of queening.

Even none of a sample of 1000 positions in the Gourion count 10^37 can result from optimal play.

Factors of 8 are petty in any case. @tygxc is wedded to a massive error in the exponent.

@5059
"Factors of 8 are petty in any case." ++ Yes.

"@tygxc is wedded to a massive error in the exponent."
++ No, there is no error in the exponent 10^44 or 10^37.
Weakly solving calls for all participants to play optimally.
Of 56011 Tromp positions or 1000 Gourion positions none can result from optimal play.

During the solution each capture or pawn move makes many positions unreachable.

Weakly solving calls for a strategy, i.e. one strategy, not all strategies.
If 1 e4 e5 draws, then it is not necessary to investigate 1 e4 c5 and vice versa.

44 is fine. 37 is not. Nor is 17, which is based on totally misunderstanding what solving is.

But at least it got butter

@5061
"44 is fine" ++ For strongly solving, not for weakly solving.

"37 is not" ++ At least it is closer for weakly solving.

"Nor is 17" ++ That is the number of relevant positions.

"which is based on totally misunderstanding what solving is"
++ Apparently you totally misunderstand what weakly solving is.
Losing Chess was weakly solved with 10^9 positions, not 10^44.
Checkers was weakly solved with 10^14 positions, not 10^20.

Oh good. Always wanted to attend an online wedding

OK, I'll fall for it. Post one.