Chess will never be solved, here's why

Your reasoning is wrong because you ignored the word "probably".

I understood it too in the sense you obviously intended. Then, after a minute, I realised that, of course, you were incorrect, since Wigan isn't a mathematical entity. It's a social one and therefore has more in common with the military context than you realise.

No it wasn't wrong. "Possibly" would be correct: but this isn't a logical treatise.

I think it's not just possible, but probable that if someone is telling me something will "never" happen they're exaggerating.

@Optimissed, to be frank, you are far more skillful at soothing your ego by finding a way to fool yourself you are not wrong than in being precise and improving your understanding.

When A says:

"a random proposition from S is probably false" (S being some specified set of propositions)

and B says:
"here is an example of a proposition from S that is true, so A is wrong"

the bottom line is that B's reasoning is wrong. No shades of grey.

All I'm doing is reacting. I have faith in myself and rarely believe that I have to put on a special show. I know that I'm far more intellectually capable than you are and I don't need not to say that to keep up some kind of facade of modesty. After all, you come across as being completely conceited.

Iff you were more intellectually capable, you would work out that there are times we discuss things as formal, logical syllogisms and there are times when we use metaphor. Using metaphor is the normal, human modus operandi. I usually discuss things as a normal person. You, however, propelled by your ego which makes you wish continually to seem to be superior, are adept at pretending that people must always discuss in the terms you prefer and sanction.

You need to grow up and stop trying to win petty points as dictated by YOUR ego. As I have stated previously, you are not as intelligent as you wish other people to imagine. You make mistakes continually, in fact. You are really not so bright and it is only the years of learning to present your thoughts in a pseudo-formal way that makes it seem, to many others, that you can think straight.

The only way you could change my mind would be to try to argue honestly, for once. To be sincere and not continually affecting an ability which you just don't possess, to the same extent as those you may be arguing with. I will repeat myself. The only way you or any person can possess that ability is through honesty and sincerity and at the moment, you don't show either.

That's a lot of words. 

@5027
... and none about solving chess...

Yes sir.

Incorrect, sir. Elroch was misleading us regarding solving chess. Whether deliberately or from ignorance, I know not, but he seems to want to use personal anecdore continually to discredit my superior intellect. If he's allowed to get away with it then this thread suffers as an effect.

Speak for yourself.

@5031

Back on topic: Will chess be solved? What does solved mean? [1]

The game-theoretic value is the outcome when all participants play optimally.

Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined. There is massive evidence that for Chess it is a draw.

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

Strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined
for all legal positions. For Chess: a 32-men table base with 10^44 legal positions [2], too much.

Will Chess be weakly solved? This means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the draw for black against all opposition by white.
A strategy can be a set of moves, a set of rules, or a combination. [1]

All participants play optimally, this means that white must oppose to the draw.
1 Nh3 opposes less than 1 Nf3. 1 a4 opposes less than 1 e4 or 1 d4. [3], [4]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1 does not oppose: 3...Nb8 draws by repetition.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nd4?, 3 Nxe5?, 3 Ng5?, 3 Nh4? are no optimal play.
Good assistants, i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters contribute such knowledge and more.

The use of such knowledge is beneficial and allowed in weakly solving a game. [1]
That leaves 10^17 (100 million billion) relevant positions.

The latest cloud engines calculate a billion positions per second. [5]
A year contains 365.25 * 24 * 3600 = 31557600 seconds.
Thus 3 cloud engines (or 3000 desktops) can weakly solve Chess in 5 years.

GM Sveshnikov was right:
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess."

Give me means money: 3 million $ for 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters and 3 cloud engines for 5 years.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527
[2] https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking 
[3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 
[4] https://www.sources.com/SSR/Docs/Capablanca-ChessFundamentals.pdf 
[5] https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis 

But you continued your "gentle joke", which was fine, to "correct" me once again, using it as yet another instance of why you're so superior. And yet all I did was to make a gentle joke at your expense: that your use of "complement" was incorrect. That's because I know how correct you like to appear.

The self-praise originates from you. I will always adjust or retract my opinion, if criticism of it is strong enough. You will not do likewise. Without doubt, you're the arrogant and conceited one. It's unjustified, however.

Your longstanding practice is to generate bad feeling by personal attacks rather than detached attempts to deal with facts. Even when you disagree with someone's statements rather than abusing them, you usually do so in an unconstructive way.

Your self-trumpeting is strongly implicit in everything your write. You then proceed to denigrate others, who are more intelligent than you, by means of misrepresentations and devious changes of subject. You're fundamentally a dishonest person.

All I do is to say "no, your treatment of what I write is incorrect and unjustified". You then proceed to make some innuendo and my response is that if you need to resort to that, then it's perfectly obvious that you have no answers and less clever than you pretend.

All of this rot originates from and is made by you, especially to promote you at the expense of others. You do it all the time, to anyone who threatens your self-image. You are fundamentally devious and self-aggrandising. The personal attacks always originate from you and over the years, I have seen you do it to many others. When you had your own threads you then blocked them, when they resisted. You should know very well that what I write is accurate, because most others do.

The overall impression is that this is all about you. Making a joke about where I live is fine but if I correct your word usage, I shouldn't have done that and it was a personal attack and representative of my arrogant blowhardery. Not of yours.

You may wonder why, years ago, I realised what kind of person you are. Definitely not one who is to be admired.

And all this comes about because for ages, you have been misleading others regarding the solving of chess, by supporting irrelevant definitions and terminology that seems to be deliberately confusing for others, in that it limits effective participation to those who fall in with a set of arguably irrelevant ideas. Moreover you use your position in academia to bamboozle others into accepting your views as right. In actuality, the ideas you put forward are highly simplistic, incorrect and disguised in semi-formal language. You can't back them up and always insist on your intellectual authority, yet you accuse others of being arrogant and of being blowhards.

I criticise your comments here because I know them to be wrong and that wrongness originates from your lack of understanding of the principles ivolved in solving chess. I challenged you many times to answer my criticisms, instead of making your sly asides and personal attacks. Therefore, accusing me of originating the personal attacks clearly brands you as a liar.

i eat chess pieces

@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)!