Chess will never be solved, here's why

When there's a post which whoever decides not to respond to -
such a post still serves a purpose ...
Here's how:
By such posts being made - one can post around them !  
And thus not make three consecutive !  Or even two consecutive.
It has a drawback and that is that the person who wants 'pingpong' can suddenly delete many of his posts!  I've seen that done aggressively.
which leaves the other with 'many consecutive'. 
Moral: wait for other posters.  Other than from the one wanting endless intensely personal verbal tennis.  He'll even see posts ignoring him as 'responses' to him.  He'll look for 'bottom post' - whenever he's on.  

The number of games can be seen as irrelevant for other reasons besides transposition.  

When you refer to them, you're hardly posting around them. Your refusal to be open and honest proves my point. How long d'you think people are going to be fooled by you? You always struck me as someone who's better with words than with anything else.

I won't interact with you again. You aren't exactly likeable but you did tell me you don't want to be liked.

Your memory is really going, isn't it?

I am pretty sure I have never, in 9 years, called anyone "a fool" on the forums.

You've *never* out-argued me...that's wishful thinking on your part.  As for raging...it's pretty clear to anyone that has read the forums over the long term that I don't "become apoplectic with rage".

There's no "normal" or "abnormal" btickler, nor are any of the various conspiracy theories you have conjured over the years about my having various secret connections or alliances remotely plausible to a reasonable poster/person.

It's pretty clear to everyone when you post this kind of stuff (or calls to the mods who have to tell you over and over that I haven't done anything wrong), who is perhaps a *tad* too emotionally invested...

P.S. The funny part is that Playerafar and I don't get along at all, ever since various discussions in the Open Discussion club.  That, of course, will not stop you from deciding it's all a complex plan to take over the forums and to shut you out of all things you have actually shut yourself out of.

@Elroch - I'm not talking about the legal moves available in a position (yes of course that's small - that particular number is tiny for a computer - I was/am referring to all the legal moves stemming from the initial position.)  And 'examining' them.  Which is different from itemizing them.  Otherwise - its not perfect.  Unreliable.  
By the way - if the computers are assigning 'best' moves and excluding others - that's not solving.  That's too assuming.  
And - we're back on subject.  For now.  

#459
In most positions there are at most 4 reasonable candidate moves.
Carlsen said in an interview that he usually considers 3 candidate moves.
For example in the initial position 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3 make sense, all the rest far less.
If we can prove that black can draw against 1 e4 and against 1 d4, then the other 18 possible moves become trivial.
It is not necessary to calculate 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? to checkmate: we know it loses for white.
In this paper AlphaZero also narrows down the number of responses. See e.g. figures 26 etc of the appendix.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 

Sorry Elroch but this guy takes some beating. Always has to win.

If you consider it "on subject" to talk with a bunch of clones, round and round in endless circles, without the remotest possibility of getting anywhere, not least due to the static created by these clones, then great for you. Maybe one day you'll discuss something with someone of some intelligence but in the meantime, hope you all have fun.

Incidentally, since there is no OP to express preferences for this or that type of discussion, there is no "on topic" here. My own opinion is that it was deliberately created as a thread for trolls and I'm not relinquishing my opinion on the identities of some of them just yet. Whatever the end result, they fell right into the simple, little trap I set, which demonstrates that they are "working" together.

See you around, Elroch and Happy Hunting, Oh, I got an exercise bike and I'm enjoying it. When it tells me I've travelled 20 km, I seem to have used enough energy to go 30. That's because I like to completely straighten my legs for maximum power and this thing won't allow it but it was brand new in kit form, with an onboard computer and cost me £20.

The greatest sprinter of all time (34 Tour de France stage wins, so far) shows that you don't need to completely straighten your legs for maximum power. (The reason is surely that the last bit would be mechanically inefficient).

Thanks for that and of course, it's logically correct because when the leg is straight, it can exert no downward force and only a tiny amount of sideways force, but when I was cycling a lot, I preferred to set the saddle so that the legs became very nearly straight, partly because I think it's healthier for the knee to flex properly but mainly because, since my legs are strong, I can generate far more power if they act more like a long-stroke engine at lower revs, rather than a short stroke one at higher revs. On this cycle I can tootle along at 18 km/hour (on the max. difficulty setting), put some effort into it and keep about 33 km/hour up for quite a time and I can achieve a maximum of 55 km/hour but only for a second or 52.5 km/hour for slightly longer. It's just too much effort pedalling in such an inefficient mode and if it were set up how I like it, I'd be going quite a bit faster in all three modes. Incidentally, I've only just discovered that you can reduce it from maximum setting a little and achieve a better average speed; but it still isn't great. There are 8 "difficulty" settings and for the first few hours I was on maximum. Then I tried it on 5 and 6 and quite liked it, because it was easier and faster but I suppose I would prefer a machine where I can use much more strength rather than speed. On this it isn't possible and so it's more of an endurance thing. I've discovered a technique of keeping my pulse at just over 150 though. At first, I could hardly get it over 140.

UPDATE
I think there was something wrong with the machine. It had been in its box, in disassembled kit form, for about15 years. At the beginning of the session I just did, it was significantly harder to pedal. It had done 80 km in total. This session: 20 minutes, hardest setting. 235 cals 10.3 Km. It was more like a proper workout. The cable for the magnetic clutch must have been partially seized. I think half an hour at that setting would be a perfect workout. To get my pulse to over 150 I have to pedal for 15 minutes so I get into the groove. Then do a burst, very hard, for about 30 seconds and ease right off. Only when eased off, the pulse rate will climb from about 143 to 153 and I can keep it there by putting some more pressure back on. Wonder why.

Nothing very surprising there. At the start of a session you are not warmed up.  A fast burst produces lactic acid, but is also a useful at the end of a warmup (based on multiple examples, eg standard British Cycling warmup).  Blood takes about 30 seconds to circulate, and heart rate reacts to lactate levels, so it goes up after a short effort. If you then cycle fairly hard it won't get a chance to fall because the lactate levels will be kept up (they go down if you take it easy - it can  take minutes for your heart rate to fall to a steady level). It's best to limit hard sessions (as ones at heart rate near 150 are sure to be) to a couple of days a week. Doing more seems initially appealing but fatigue will mount up and become counterproductive. Other easy sessions are beneficial, as these benefit aerobic fitness in multiple ways.

I think you're still missing a point.

If the game to be solved is basic rules chess then the following algorithm secures a draw for White from the position shown and it's easy to prove that the draw is secured whatever moves Black plays. This wouldn't however be regarded as a solution by most people involved in the thread.

White's algorithm: Move the rook to whichever of g8 or h8 is not occupied.

An ideal game under your definition could be

2n-1. Rh8 Kd2

2n.    Rg8 Kd3

but in this particular position, if White follows the algorithm any game would necessarily be an  ideal game under your definition. It's easy to prove (I'll provide a proof if you insist) that each move in the above game is optimal for the player making it.

I would say the aim is rather to produce a game in which play by both sides is perfect as I defined it in #147 here https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=8 with proof that each move is optimal for the player making it.

Under competition rules your definition would be OK, but I think most people would understand OP's statement to be about the basic game.

There seems to be a bit of the strategy missing - forcing that position from the opening 32 piece position.

@Optimissed - £20 for a magnetic trainer? How did you find that bargain?

@Elroch

Yes, I should have said basic rules with the starting position in art 2.2 and the starting material in 2.1 amended to the position shown. It was just to illustrate @btickler's definition of "solved" was incomplete. 

I wanted to do it from the starting position, but I'm still waiting for @tygxc to finish his project.

@tygxc
"It is not necessary to calculate 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? to checkmate: we know it loses for white."
That sequence is too weak to be a good example of a key early position.
More to the point would be initial moves like 1) c4 b5 cxb.  Black appears to lose a pawn with little or no compensation.  But if the computer is going to just dismiss all positions arising from that and things like that - and that's going to be the standard for defining 'solved' - its such a low standard that it could be asked why chess isn't 'solved' already.  
And trying to 'solve' from the opening would appear to be much more dubious than from the simplest positions with minimal material.

Somebody died about 3 years ago and a person I do some stuff with inherited their property, in Thornton Clevelys, Fylde. They offered me it for £50, which I would have paid for a normal upright trainer but this one's a recumbent cycle and I was dubious about it, so offered £20 to get it out of their way. Actually one of the best £20 I ever spent, but not as good as when I bought what I thought (and also the seller thought) was advertising for old British stamps from around 1970, for £5 and then someone contacted me and told me of a dealer who would probably buy them. Eventually he paid over £3000. They were very large colour trials for stamps. Just luck.

Could you not do this stuff out of line?