Chess will never be solved, here's why

Posterity doesn't care.
Not everyone has obsessive-compulsive disorder as severely as you.

I see you like "hubris". That's one of those pretentious words that trolls use a lot innit?

@4611
"what Tygxc proposes is not a solution for chess at all"
++ Yes, it is, but you still do not understand.
The estimation of the number of legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions 10^17 does not need to be accurate, it can be 10^18 or 10^16.
The number of perfect games in the ICCF WC 127 need not be accurate: it can also be 126.

The weak solution of chess must be accurate:
proof how to draw for black against all reasonable white moves.

I used to be able to do that as well. Still can. I've got five windows in my flat and I can see through all of them. (Mind you, if I don't get round to cleaning them soon my gift could disappear.)

You never use "innit".  It's really telling that you are colloquializing your dialogue on purpose in an attempt to make me look bad.  Given that being perceived as the most intelligent person alive is your primary goal in life, taking this step shows how angry you are, which in turn shows how accurate my post was.  I will address that in a somewhat kinder way in a moment when I respond to your Typewriter reply.

I very often use "innit" it but a major part of your multiple disorders is that you have always had the observational powers of a paraplegic slug.

I just played this game of chess. It's more entertaining even than you are.

If I had a book, a physical book, with every possible game of tic tac toe, I would consider that solving tic tac toe. The number of chess games is finite and if I had a book with every possible game of chess that could be played( it might have 10^100 pages or even 10^1000 pages) I would consider that solving chess.

Your "one grunt for yes, two for no" directed at Typewriter represents an escalation that is unwarranted.  He didn't do anything but be on the same side of the argument as everyone else that is opposing you, me in particular.  It's abundantly clear who you are angry with, and why.

Consider doing something different.  Also consider that it's a compliment that I am offering this viewpoint instead of just assuming you are an old dog that cannot learn new tricks.

Link a couple of posts where you have typed the word "innit" before today...you have almost a decade of posts to choose from.  I don't much care if you use it offline, here on the forums you do not...as anyone on the various solve chess/chess is a draw threads could attest.

Good game, but your opponent kind of gave it up when they played cxb5 and started playing on the queenside while they were gearing up for a kingside attack, then they did it again with Na5, which was chasing your queen one move too far.  Those two tempi would have come in handy on the kingside.  The loss of the piece doesn't really deserve commentary, the game was already over...

But you don't say how that corresponds with your last definition of weakly solved (or any of your previous ones for that matter).

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

Where do "reasonable" moves come into it?

     I just don't believe that we can use GMs, engines, or a combination of the two to definitively decide which moves are unreasonable. Top human players and the best engines have proved themselves capable of making mistakes in evaluation. Deliberately letting imperfect entities eliminate a great number of positions from consideration in the search foe a solution will create reasonable doubt as to the validity of the conclusion.

     If we do not eliminate so many lines from examination the size of the task and the amount of time and resources needed to complete it, will grow.

But...but...it's entirely reasonable to only check 1 out of every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 positions...

And the rest. He's talking about competition rules.

When someone proposes to make a car engine out of cheese, I don't feel the need to tell them their piston timing is off.

It means that if someone's idea is entirely off the mark, there is no point in discussing all the specific parameters with them at a detailed level.

Not a matter of piston timing. The number of game states (which is what I refer to as positions and what SF works with, so presumably what @tygxc should be starting with) in KBNvK under competition rules is probably comparable with Tromp's number of basic rules positions for the whole game (though it's difficult to say). Not a minor adjustment by any stretch.

I don't think it's a minor adjustment.  I chose that analogy to be expedient.  It covers the point I was making, but is not 100% applicable.

@4618
"The number of chess games is finite" ++ Yes, but too large: between 10^29241 and 10^34082, that is why positions are better than games: 10^44 legal of which 10^17 relevant.

"I had a book with every possible game of chess that could be played
(it might have 10^100 pages or even 10^1000 pages)"
++ At 1 page per game that would be between 10^29241 and 10^34082 pages.

"I would consider that solving chess."
++ No, a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions would strongly solve chess.
Chess can be weakly solved with 10^17 relevant positions.

@4621

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

"Where do "reasonable" moves come into it?"
++ any opposition indicates an act of opposing, i.e. white opposes to black achieving the game-theoretic value of a draw.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1 does not oppose, it helps.