@Ralphmcm, there are a few distinct types of solution. Here it has been generally acknowledged while we would be interested find an "ultra-weak solution" (proving what the result of chess with perfect play is, but failing to exhibit strategies to achieve it) but that it is extremely unlikely that a useful one exists, and have focussed almost entirely on the notion of a "weak solution". This consists of a complete, practical strategy for each player that guarantees getting the theoretical result.
Part of this (and in practice achieved simultaneously, as for checkers) is to prove what the result of chess is with best play by both sides.
ok?
You really ought to study my posts more. Thee only viable strategy lies in "playing the best moves". These definitions have been written by idiots. They have no significance for the solution of chess.
While I have read your posts, this article and its ilk is what merits study. Your point does not have substance.
Do you really have the narcissistic arrogance to say the authors are "idiots"? They understand that what the work discussed has achieved is a weak solution. I am also 100% sure they understand ultraweak solutions of other games and why the distinction matters. They also very clearly understand why a weak solution is very different to a complete tablebase for checkers (which would provide a strong solution).
.
You are right to be confident. You are wrong to be certain.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white
A more extreme example of the same.
Elroch, this is where you fall flat. Sticking to this principle of "we cannot know anything" is as wrong in principle as it's wrong in practice.
There is no excuse for believing I believe that. I have often directly contradicted it.
Ah so you just pick and choose. Seeing as you'd make a lousy philosopher, I suppose your philosophy is that you get to chop and change your ideas whenever you fancy and whenever you imagine it gives an (illusory) advantage in a discussion. You need to aim for some kind of consistency.
White giving away a bishop on the second move of a game loses by force and we can know that.
On the contrary, we know all facts that have been proved. One of those is that checkers is a draw with best play.
One could equally criticise you for your own certainty, after all. You condemn yourself, except in the eyes of a nihilist. Your own insistence that tygxc is wrong fails to your own principles. It's too much a mixed message.
It is true I have absolute faith in the rules of logic.
I also have great respect for the entirely different inductive reasoning of science, which leads to confidence but never absolute certainty.
But unlike some people such as tygxc , I never confuse the two.
Your problem is that you have no awareness of when you're being inductive and yet you think you're being deductive. You're quite clever but not clever enough for this type of discussion. Your refuge in supercilious comment don't work. You're out of your depth.