Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.>>>
That's meaningless. Define what is meant by strategy and you should see that it's inapplicable and the only strategy is to play good moves. Also, "any opposition" means that obvious blunders are included. They rightly fall into the other incorrect category of "strongly solved".
Strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined
for all legal positions. For Chess this would mean a 32-men table base
and there are 10^44 legal positions, too much for present technology.>>>
That's even more meaningless (if it's possible to be more meaningless than meaningless) because there is no need to find the best continuation against mistakes which definitely lose and against random play. Probably 99.99999999999999999 etc forever of games fall into this category. "Solving chess" therefore isn't concerned with them. It is only concerned with a tiny greay area where a probable mistake has a tiny possibility of being sound play.
Do you really need a "strategy" against play where your opponent drops his rooks and queen, three pawns and one bishop in the first 20 moves? So, again, all that is necessary is to play soundly. Doesn't even have to be the best moves because there's no law of chess that says you have to win in the fewest moves possible.
These are points that Elroch cannot understand either and so the two of you are united, in a complete failure to understand the twaddle that you both spout. These so-called "strategies and definitions" are complete junk. They are at the level that a slightly retarded, 13 year old schoolboy might achieve. Neither of you have a clue.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
You have basically, both of you, fallen into the error of believing that some junk you have found on Wiki was written by experts in the field. When I first saw those definitions a year or so ago, I immediately assumed that they'd been written by a philosophy professor who was having a laugh. You know, having a joke to see what his students (or junior lecturers) would make of it. I still think that's entirely possible and that these definitions are someone's joke: all the more funny because no-one has edited them out of Wiki if there are no Wiki editors who know they're wrong. When I first saw them, I laughed and here you both are still believing them. And you expect to be taken seriously. 
One who eschews and dismisses all sources of knowledge cannot really know much. That just follows, yes?
Eschews is a very good word for dogs to know.
One who eschews and dismisses all sources of knowledge cannot really know much. That just follows, yes?
You must imagine that you and Elroch are sources of knowledge!
You must imagine that you and Elroch are sources of knowledge!
That does *not* follow. Better take the whole exam over, you might not get a good score 
.
I could fly to Pluto in five years if I had the money and three chess grandmasters to help. Nobody will believe me. How come tygxc believes Sveshnikov?
You must imagine that you and Elroch are sources of knowledge!
That does *not* follow. Better take the whole exam over, you might not get a good score .
Do you mean that you admit you're not sources of knowledge? Does that mean that you don't know enough to be able to make a judgement??
Exam?? Dementia?
I have a very fundamental question that I'm not sure has been answered:
Given any position in a game, does there exist, for the player about to move, an "optimal" move, such that if he makes that move, he will have a certain path to at least a draw no matter what the opponent does?
I am not convinced that such a move exists. Obviously, you can talk about percentages and data bases, but here we're looking for certainty, and I don't think we've established that it exists.
In "any position", there is one or more optimal moves which allows the forcing of the optimal result against any counterstrategy. In some positions this optimal result is a win; in others, a draw (and in some, a loss, which means all moves are optimal in the pure sense).
In "any position", there is one or more optimal moves which allows the forcing of the optimal result against any counterstrategy. In some positions this is a draw, in some positions a win (and in some a loss, which means all moves are optimal in the pure sense).
I'm not convinced. You're making an assertion that I don't agree with, but you're offering no rationale.
If we were talking tic tac toe or checkers, we'd all agree there is an "optimal" move that assures at least a path to a draw. How do we know if this is true in chess?
Also, I'm not sure how you can have one "or more" optimal moves.
Just to demonstrate that @Optimissed's projection about those who contribute to Wikipedia was not accurate:
An example peer-reviewed paper about the non-trivial ultra-weak solution of a game in the same general class as chess, checkers, go etc.
Another peer-reviewed paper listing many important games that have been weakly solved and discussing the prospects for solving others.
A milestone paper, explaining how checkers had finally been weakly solved.
In "any position", there is one or more optimal moves which allows the forcing of the optimal result against any counterstrategy. In some positions this is a draw, in some positions a win (and in some a loss, which means all moves are optimal in the pure sense).
I'm not convinced. You're making an assertion that I don't agree with, but you're offering no rationale.
I didn't, but this is a theorem from the theory of finite games, so you can be absolutely sure it is true.
The proof is not trivial but is quite easy.
In "any position", there is one or more optimal moves which allows the forcing of the optimal result against any counterstrategy. In some positions this is a draw, in some positions a win (and in some a loss, which means all moves are optimal in the pure sense).
I'm not convinced. You're making an assertion that I don't agree with, but you're offering no rationale.
I didn't, but this is a theorem from the theory of finite games, so you can be absolutely sure it is true.
The proof is not trivial but is quite easy.
OK, I'm a bit out "over my skis" here, but what is the definition of a "finite game"?
Just to demonstrate that @Optimissed's projection about those who contribute to Wikipedia was not accurate:
An example peer-reviewed paper about the non-trivial ultra-weak solution of a game in the same general class as chess, checkers, go etc.
Another peer-reviewed paper listing many important games that have been weakly solved and discussing the prospects for solving others.
A milestone paper, explaining how checkers had finally been weakly solved.
Oh come on. I've mentioned before that my late brother was a long tome Wiki editor. He very much wanted to get me involved, probably to back him up on arguments with recidicivistic Wiki editors who did not know their subjects. My brother was an historian who also had a wide knowledge of languages, religions, Occult stuff and English Literature to name but a few of his fields of excellence.
Anyway, that's beside the point, which is that although Wiki has improved somewhat over the last 10 years, anyone who imagines that they will always find correct information there is naive beyond belief.
You seem to place great faith in peer revue. Whereas, of course, it's necessary to have checks and balances in acedemia, a peer revue can only pick up on obvious errors since someone's peer is unlikely to be a specialist in the field under consideration. So peer revue isn't and cannot be a guarantee of correctness.
Also you're spouting the same old stuff about weak and strong and I've already explained that it's perfectly obvious that you do not understand the application of Games Theory sufficiently to have any authority on the matter.
In "any position", there is one or more optimal moves which allows the forcing of the optimal result against any counterstrategy. In some positions this is a draw, in some positions a win (and in some a loss, which means all moves are optimal in the pure sense).
I'm not convinced. You're making an assertion that I don't agree with, but you're offering no rationale.
I didn't, but this is a theorem from the theory of finite games, so you can be absolutely sure it is true.
The proof is not trivial but is quite easy.
OK, I'm a bit out "over my skis" here, but what is the definition of a "finite game"?
He's trying to blind us with theory. A finite game is one that is not infinite. Thet is, it ends at some point and does not have an infinity of permutations or positions. Chess might as well be infinite, for all the possibility there is in tracing all the possible games.
<<I didn't, but this is a theorem from the theory of finite games, so you can be absolutely sure it is true.>>
I stopped accepting Elroch's judgement many years ago.
In "any position", there is one or more optimal moves which allows the forcing of the optimal result against any counterstrategy. In some positions this is a draw, in some positions a win (and in some a loss, which means all moves are optimal in the pure sense).
I'm not convinced. You're making an assertion that I don't agree with, but you're offering no rationale.
I didn't, but this is a theorem from the theory of finite games, so you can be absolutely sure it is true.
The proof is not trivial but is quite easy.
OK, I'm a bit out "over my skis" here, but what is the definition of a "finite game"?
A finite two player game is where there are two players, they move alternately, there are a finite number of alternatives at each move and every game ends in a finite number of moves. An example of a game that fails to meet the definition would be noughts and crosses on an infinite plane. Chess only meets the definition if you assume draws are forced by the 50 move rule or a repetition, rather than needing to be claimed.
[Also, I don't think my adjective "easy" was really appropriate. Rather it is a concise proof!].
That is what GM Sveshnikov prophesied:
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess."
He was right.
The obstacle is the money: 3 million $ to hire 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters full time
and rent 3 cloud engines (or 3000 dekstops) non stop 24/7 during 5 years.<<<<
Twaddle.