so
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Try again...this is the game theory definition in context for this thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory
P.S. the other wikipedia entry *is* also about games, and is called game theory because that's exactly where it started before being applied to other "rational agents", but not games like chess. If you have watched the movie "A Beautiful MInd", it is about John Nash and his contributions to Game Theory and the idea of applying it elsewhere to all kinds of systems.
tygxc wrote:
@6879
"where did you get the number 10^44?"
++ Here: https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking
"Furthermore how did you get it down to 10^17 ?"
++ The vast majority of the 10^44 positions makes no sense and cannot result from optimal play from both sides. See the displayed 3 random samples: more than 3 rooks / bishop on each side.
A better estimate is 10^37 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.09386.pdf
However a random sample of 10,000 such positions show none can result from optimal play from both sides either. That leaves 10^37 / 10,000 = 10^33 positions.
Now multiply by 10 to accomodate also positions with 3 or 4 queens that do arrive with optimal play by both sides, as we know from ICCF. 10^33 * 10 = 10^34
To weakly solve Chess we only need 1 strategy for black to draw against all white opposition.
So instead of w white moves with each w black responses, we only need to look at w white moves with 1 response each. So instead of w*w positions only w*1 = w = sqrt (w*w) positions. Thus Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 relevant positions.
"I was taking mostly about weakly solving but strongly solving is harder than weakly solving"
++ Strongly solving needs all 10^44 legal positions,
weakly solving only 10^17 relevant positions.
"it doesn’t take computers 5 years to solve chess"
++ It does take 5 years to calculate 10^17 relevant positions.
"otherwise they would have already done it." ++ So far nobody has put up 3 million $ to rent 3 cloud engines and hire 3 grandmasters during 5 years.
"Every so often there is an “engine tournament”, different chess engines are playing chess games against each other, beginning from a set of known starting positions." ++ TCEC, every year. They impose slightly unbalanced openings between 0.3 and 0.7 to avoid all draws.
'If it is possible to weakly solve chess in 5 years, it is possible to solve for each of those positions in about 5 years" ++ No. Weakly solving Chess only needs 1 strategy for black to draw.
Many of the imposed openings fall outside of that. If black can draw with 1 e4 e5, then 1 e4 c5 may draw as well or not.
"someone just needs to have about 20 computers working in the background for 5 years and the competition is gone?"
++ 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s or 3000 desktops of 10^6 nodes/s.
"it is not possible in such a small time, again, otherwise someone would have already done that."
++ 3 powerful computers of 10^9 nodes/s and 3 grandmasters during 5 years is a huge task, which costs 3 million $. Nobody has funded or started such a project.
"5 years of what computer"
++ 5 years of three 10^9 nodes/s cloud engines, or 5 years of 3000 desktops of 10^6 nodes/s.
"I am not familiar with the term 7-men endgame table base”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
"I assume this means to the end of the game or to a solved position"
++ All positions of 7 men or less have been strongly solved.
"it is not what it is coded to do"
++ It is. In TCEC the engines hit their 7-men endgame table bases.
"it is coded to give you the probability best move in a reasonable amount of time"
++ If you give more time it gets deeper and hits the 7-men endgame table base.
"is enough time 2 years or 10^20 years?" ++ Enough time is 5 years on three 10^9 nodes/s cloud engines or on 3000 desktops of 10^6 nodes/s.
"so theoretically a computer could solve any positions" ++ No, any legal position would mean 10^44 positions, that is strongly solving or a 32-men table base and that would be too much.
I just read the page you linked to, that was a mess of gibberish. There is no explanation of anything, and they are just throwing numbers and terms from nowhere.
What I did understand is that they tested 2 million random positions, and got 12 legal positions out. I have no clue how they got there, but it doesn’t matter! There are (64!)/(32!) positions just with all the prices on the board, so there are much more without(I don’t remember the formula for items that don’t necessarily exist, but having all 32 pieces is a part of all possible positions so it is at least less). So, there are *more* than (64!)/(32!) possible positions, (about 4.8•10^53) and only 12 out of 2 million are legal. That means that there are more than 2.8•10^48 legal positions. How did they get to 10^44 is beyond me.
there are a ton of flaws in the page, most of them probably would be solved if it was written in English not gibberish.
about the actual mathematics paper you linked: it appears you didn’t read the paper? He is calculating legal positions where pawns can’t promote? These are vastly fewer than the amount of total possible positions? I might be just not understanding, but that seems like what the page is about to me.
there is literally 0 reason for that random division by 10000, they already calculated the legal positions you can’t say that only 0.01% off them are “actually legal” for no reason.
What you do afterwards with square rooting and multiplying by 10 is nonsense, you can’t do that with no explanation, needing one strategy doesn’t magically square root away your problems.
unrelated to all of this though, this is NOT how you calculate how much it would take to weakly solve chess.
For once, yes you need only one “strategy”, but you need to firstly find it, so you need to go over most of the possible moves, and somehow “decide” which is the best, not which gives you the best position, which will get you the win(if possible) or draw. So it is not just to find one move for each of the other player’s.
(You can ignore this point I didn’t really know how to say this and it came out very confusing) Secondly, this whole idea of finding the total amount of possible positions and then going down from there is broken. You need yo start at the first move, and calculated every move you can make, and run with it until the game finishes(stale mate, win, lose, repeat..) and every position you get to you write down (there is a way to write a chess position as a number, not too complicated), if you get to a position you have already been to, you stop(because you already calculated it) and go back and try a different path. This(and variations of this) is the only way to do it. (Because the game is so complex this is very similar to strongly solving it) this takes too much computer power-time to ever complete. (ignore ends here)
thirdly, even if we somehow agree on this 10^17 number of yours, this is still way too much. if every one of these positions would take just 8 bytes to store, that would take be more information than the whole internet, this is not something a computer “could do in 5 years” (and each of those positions and moves obviously take more than 8 bytes to store).
About the why nobody did it already: you said nobody put 3M$ for that yet. Seriously? Google competes in these events sometimes, Nasa considered joining one time! And do you think no bored billionaire has ever thought “hmm, could I do that?” 3M$ is a lot for normal people, but it is a joke in these terms.
When I said that if you could weakly solve chess you could weakly solve all these positions I ment that in the same way you weakly solve from the starting position you weakly solve from the forced position it is the same exact process.
Optimissed wrote:
EylonShachmon wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@6897
++ Weakly solved does not call for all black moves that do not lose. Only one is enough.
It might win though!
On the other hand that weak solution of Chess then does not need to handle Petrov, Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Pirc, Dutch, King's Indian Defense, Grünfeld Indian Defense, Nimzovich Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted...
Seriously, no-one is going to buy this as any kind of a solution for chess. It isn't adding ANYTHING to what we already know or to chess theory. The entire, artificial idea of "weakly solving", "strongly solving" etc is complete nonsense because in practice, they overlap considerably.
In any case, the supposed definitions that are in use "ie weak solving is a strategy that .... etc" or "an algorithm that .... etc" is also nonsense, since in each case we're discussing series of concrete moves, which is very much NOT a strategy, except that in its simplest form, a viable strategy in chess is "any series of moves which does not contain any move or moves that lose by force".
So the supposed experts here place all their faith in other experts whose conceptions of the strategy of solving chess isn't just archaic but ludicrous. And these people, being called "games theorists", cannot do wrong because of their title, and everyone believes them, even though they obviously come from a bygone age and never thought well and properly on this subject in their entire lives.
Tygxc is pushing this rubbish on the pretext of educating others, tacitly supported by people who cannot see that the entire project is built on sand, because they're only intent on trying to get tygxc to recognise their own very limited objections.
Unless the foundations of "solving chess" are reassessed from ground up, there's no point at all in any of this twaddle. No group of scientists would dream of approaching an area of research without assessing and reassessing it. A reliance on the potentially outworn and useless ideas of others is an obvious and elementary mistake, which makes nonsense of this entire thread.
I understand the frustration (and I do not claim that what tygxc is saying is true) but do not dismiss the whole subject of solving games. This is not some made up concept with no use in the real world, this is a major part of game theory (which is a concrete mathematical field with everything any other field has), the concept of solving games is mathematically defined.
At the very best, "games theory" is one of those soft sciences, at least in its application to the theories and strategies of games. In my understanding, games theory wasn't developed to analyse games or the strategies of games, which is a rather simple subject. It is meant to be used to apply theory of games to real life, "serious" situations, which are not games at all. Most people here seem to have no conception that such is the case.
Although, there is a reason very few mathematicians study chess, because there is currently little to no advancements to be made. all the research has pretty much already been done, we know it cannot be solved, there are countless studies on that, and “chess research” is pretty much stuck.
I would say the opposite. Everything remains to be done. So far, chess bears no relationship to maths, because so far, absolutely zero progress has been made in representing chess mathematically. One mathematician whom I know and trust says that it cannot be done. By that, he probably means that it won't be done in his lifetime.
most research is not made on real games, but on theoretical mathematical games, which have clearer rules and are more useful to study, the few games that have been “solved” like checkers is just a proof of concept or a show off for a big company or university.
Most research will be done on simple games, which can actually be mathematically represented.
Game theory is not a “soft science”, it is a field in mathematics as much as topology and as arithmetics. Please don’t take away the credit for incredible mathematicians because of some people who misused research in an online forum, this is a legit topic with doctors and professors and people who commit their whole life to.
game theory was developed as any other thing in mathematics, not specifically to do something in the real world but to solve some mathematical problems, and after that we find uses in the real world. The name “game theory” is kind of misleading, it is not about “games”, it is called that because of how it started, but it (along with graph theory) is they main tool to mathematically analyse games.
there are many ways to represent chess mathematically, there just isn’t that much to get from it, the only thing you can really do is get closer and closer to weakly solving it, which isn’t that great of a mathematical achievement, and most of the people in the field agree it is basically impossible.
Dec 27, 2022
0
#5206
EylonShachmon wrote:
...
There are (64!)/(32!) positions just with all the prices on the board...
Er, you sure about that? I think I prefer the gibberish.
So long as we're talking about basic rules positions at any rate (@tygxc obviously isn't, which is far more to the point).
MARattigan wrote:
EylonShachmon wrote:
...
There are (64!)/(32!) positions just with all the prices on the board...
Er, you sure about that? I think I prefer the gibberish.
So long as we're talking about basic rules positions at any rate (@tygxc obviously isn't).
No I ment positions in total not legal positions, that is the number if you just put every piece in a random position.
one of the things they check when they check if the position is legal or not is stuff like bishops not on the same colour, pawns not on first and last row, kings not near each other ….
(! Is factorial, it is the number times every integer smaller, so 5! = 5•4•3•2•1=120, 6! = 6•5•4•3•2•1=720, 10! = 10•9•8•7•…•2•1=3,628,800)
Dec 27, 2022
0
#5208
EylonShachmon wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
EylonShachmon wrote:
...
There are (64!)/(32!) positions just with all the prices on the board...
Er, you sure about that? I think I prefer the gibberish.
So long as we're talking about basic rules positions at any rate (@tygxc obviously isn't).
No I ment positions in total not legal positions, that is the number if you just put every piece in a random position.
Only if you label the pieces, e.g. calling your white horses Prancer and Charger.
one of the things they check when they check if the position is legal or not is stuff like bishops not on the same colour, pawns not on first and last row, kings not near each other ….
Last is normally king of side not to move not in check, but you haven't mentioned side to move. Some tablebases have extra constraints like no triple checks (but unless you can get hold of the generating code you'll probably need to find out by trial and error). The upshot is to significantly reduce the number.
The best available estimate of legal positions under basic rules to date is the paper you didn't like, as far as I know. And it's not 10^44 as @tygxc keeps trying to tell everyone, but (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44.
If you want to talk about legal positions under competition rules and equate them to game states (as @tygxc does) then you have to increase that number by a ridiculously huge unknown factor (as @tygxc doesn't - he instead divides it by something rather less huge but more ridiculous).
(! Is factorial, it is the number times every integer smaller, so 5! = 5•4•3•2•1=120, 6! = 6•5•4•3•2•1=720, 10! = 10•9•8•7•…•2•1=3,628,800)
I assumed so.
Dec 27, 2022
0
#5209
Optimissed wrote:
Seriously, no-one is going to buy this as any kind of a solution for chess...The entire, artificial idea of "weakly solving", "strongly solving" etc is complete nonsense because in practice, they overlap considerably.
...
Weakly solving overlaps strongly solving in exactly the same way that vegetables overlaps cabbages. That doesn't mean that no-one is going to buy any cabbages.
@6899
"there is a reason very few mathematicians study chess"
++ There has been a lot of progress. Work by Tromp and Gourion has shown there are not as many positions as previously thought. Work with AlphaZero has acquired game knowledge with only the Laws of Chess as input and hence no human bias.
There is also progress on the 8-men endgame table base.
"there is currently little to no advancements to be made" ++ There has been advance last year.
"all the research has pretty much already been done" ++ No way, it has barely started.
"we know it cannot be solved" ++ We know it can be weakly solved and it takes 5 years.
"the few games that have been “solved” like checkers is just a proof of concept"
++ No, Schaeffer has weakly solved Checkers with 10^14 relevant positions of the 10^20 legal positions and by pruning the 300 tournament openings down to 19.
The same path is viable for Chess, but it takes 10^17 relevant positions, that is 1000 times more than Checkers. Present computers can do that in 5 years.
MARattigan wrote:
EylonShachmon wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
EylonShachmon wrote:
...
There are (64!)/(32!) positions just with all the prices on the board...
Er, you sure about that? I think I prefer the gibberish.
So long as we're talking about basic rules positions at any rate (@tygxc obviously isn't).
No I ment positions in total not legal positions, that is the number if you just put every piece in a random position.
Only if you label the pieces, e.g. calling your white horses Prancer and Charger.
one of the things they check when they check if the position is legal or not is stuff like bishops not on the same colour, pawns not on first and last row, kings not near each other ….
Last is normally king of side not to move not in check, but you haven't mentioned side to move. Some tablebases have extra constraints like no triple checks (but unless you can get hold of the generating code you'll probably need to find out by trial and error). The upshot is to significantly reduce the number.
The best available estimate of legal positions under basic rules to date is the paper you didn't like, as far as I know. And it's not 10^44 as @tygxc keeps trying to tell everyone, but (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44.
If you want to talk about legal positions under competition rules and equate them to game states (as @tygxc does) then you have to increase that number by a ridiculously huge unknown factor (as @tygxc doesn't - he instead divides it by something rather less huge but more ridiculous).
(! Is factorial, it is the number times every integer smaller, so 5! = 5•4•3•2•1=120, 6! = 6•5•4•3•2•1=720, 10! = 10•9•8•7•…•2•1=3,628,800)
I assumed so.
Yes if you label the horses that was a very basic number to start with, but as I said if you make the calculations with the horses and the pawn unlabelled(and the king and the rooks have a “can castle” option) and you include the positions with less than 32 pieces is comes to about the same number, a bit less, my point with 12/2,000,000 still stands.
I didn’t give a list of all things they check that was an example ;-;
i really don’t understand where that 4.82*10^44 came from, in the gibberish page the number just appeared out of nowhere and that is the only place I have seen it.
Don't conflate Tromp's data with Tygxc's theories. Tromp has previously told Tygxc to take a walk 
. The 10^44 number is the most solid estimate for unique legal positions , down from the previous 10^46 that was accepted before it. If you think it's all gibberish, load up the software yourself and run it, and collect the $250 dollar bounty for finding an issue with it. If you can't make heads or tales of GitHub or figure out how the number was derived, then...maybe not the right person to comment on the veracity of the data.
@6904
"I just read the page you linked to, that was a mess of gibberish."
++ Tromp's and Gourion's work is solid.
"There is no explanation of anything, and they are just throwing numbers and terms from nowhere." ++ Maybe you lack some background.
"What I did understand is that they tested 2 million random positions, and got 12 legal positions out." ++ No, not at all. Tromp calculated exactly 8726713169886222032347729969256422370854716254 positions with a Haskell program.
Then he randomly sampled 1,000,000 of these and he found 56011 of those to be legal.
Thus he arrived at (4.85304 +- 0.039) e+44 legal positions.
The vast majority of those positions makes no sense,
see the 3 displayed random samples with 3 rooks / bishops per side.
Gourion counted the positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured as 10^37.
"I have no clue how they got there" ++ They explained in their papers. You can read it.
"but it doesn’t matter!" ++ It does matter.
"There are (64!)/(32!) positions" ++ No.
"How did they get to 10^44 is beyond me."
++ 8726713169886222032347729969256422370854716254 * 56011 / 1000000 = 4.85 * 10^44
"there are a ton of flaws in the page" ++ No. It is solid work.
"it appears you didn’t read the paper?" ++ I did read it, did you?
"He is calculating legal positions where pawns can’t promote?" ++ Legal positions where pawns do not promote to pieces not previously captured, i.e. no 3 rooks or 3 bishops per side.
"These are vastly fewer than the amount of total possible positions?"
++ Yes 10^37 as opposed to 10^44. The vast majority of the 10^44 legal positions has e.g. 3 rooks / bishops per side, as you can see from the 3 random samples displayed on the Tromp page. So the Gourion figure of 10^37 is more realistic for the purpose of estimating the viability of solving Chess.
"there is literally 0 reason for that random division by 10000"
++ Inspection of a random sample of 10,000 Gourion positions shows none can result from optimal play by both sides. Hence 10^37 / 10000 = 10^33 reasonable positions.
"What you do afterwards with square rooting and multiplying by 10 is nonsense, you can’t do that with no explanation, needing one strategy doesn’t magically square root away your problems." ++ It is the main difference between weakly solving and strongly solving. To strongly solve you need all legal positions i.e. all legal white moves and all legal black responses. E.g. on move 1: 20 * 20 = 400 positions. To weakly solve you need only 1 black response to each white move: 20 * 1 = 20 positions. 20 = Sqrt (400). The same after 2 moves, 3 moves... d moves.
To weakly solve only needs the square root of the number of positions to strongly solve.
"this is NOT how you calculate how much it would take to weakly solve chess." ++ It is.
"yes you need only one strategy” ++ Yes, that is the whole point of weakly solving.
"you need to firstly find it" ++ Just take the top 1 engine move for black. If the black moves thus found lead to a 7-men endgame table base draw, then they were all good enough to draw.
"so you need to go over most of the possible moves, and somehow decide which is the best"
++ Best is not necessary: only good enough to draw for black.
"which will get you the win(if possible) or draw"
++ White tries to win, black tries to draw.
Once black succeeds in leading all reasonable white moves to 7-men endgame table base draws or prior 3-fold repetitions, then Chess is weakly solved.
"So it is not just to find one move for each of the other player’s."
++ It is. It is about finding 1 black response to all reasonable white moves such that it ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.
"this whole idea of finding the total amount of possible positions and then going down from there is broken." ++ It is the only way to estimate how long it takes to weakly solve Chess.
"You need yo start at the first move, and calculated every move you can make, and run with it until the game finishes(stale mate, win, lose, repeat..) and every position you get to you write down" ++ For strongly solving chess you need all legal white moves and all legal black moves.
For weakly solving chess you need only 1 black response to all reasonable white moves.
"if you get to a position you have already been to, you stop(because you already calculated it) "
++ That is called transition tables, those were used in weakly solving Checkers and Losing Chess.
"This(and variations of this) is the only way to do it."
++ The essence: strongly solving: all legal white moves, all legal black responses;
weakly solving: all reasonable white moves, only 1 black response each.
Many here fail to understand that and use the time for strongly solving mistakenly as the time for weakly solving.
"Because the game is so complex this is very similar to strongly solving it" ++ No it is not. Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers, not strongly. He did not calculate all 10^20 legal positions, only 10^14 relevant ones. He pruned the 300 tournament openings down to 19 relevant ones.
"if we somehow agree on this 10^17 number of yours, this is still way too much"
++ 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s can do that in 5 years.
"if every one of these positions would take just 8 bytes to store, that would take be more information than the whole internet" ++ Storage poses no problem. You store only the paths from the initial position to the 7-men endgame table base draw. The solution tree is even smaller than the search tree. Checkers has a solution tree of only 10^7 positions, linking the initial position to the table base drawn positions by a path of legal moves from one drawn position to the other.
"3M$ is a lot for normal people, but it is a joke in these terms." ++ Nobody put up 3M$ so far.
@6912
"For getting again material balance does not win, lose, or draw a game of chess."
++ 'Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success' - Capablanca
Example:
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?
This loses material: a bishop.
All other things are equal, white gets no compensation of any kind.
This is a forced win for black.
There is no need for further calculation.
Dec 28, 2022
0
#5215
tygxc wrote:
@6912
"For getting again material balance does not win, lose, or draw a game of chess."
++ 'Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success' - Capablanca
Example:
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?
This loses material: a bishop.
All other things are equal, white gets no compensation of any kind.
This is a forced win for black.
There is no need for further calculation.
"There is no need for further calculation."
Unless you want to solve chess. If you want to not solve chess we can agree.
@6919
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is irrelevant to solving chess.
We know that loses by force for white.
It is not necessary to burn computer engine time on something we already know.
Such trivial obstacles are needed if you want to not solve chess.
Relevant questions:
How to draw against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3
How to draw against 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3, 2 Nc3, 2 Bc4, 2 d4
How to draw against 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5, 3 Bc4, 3 Nc3, 3 d4
Etc, etc.
Dec 29, 2022
0
#5217
EylonShachmon wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
EylonShachmon wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
EylonShachmon wrote:
...
There are (64!)/(32!) positions just with all the prices on the board...
Er, you sure about that? I think I prefer the gibberish.
So long as we're talking about basic rules positions at any rate (@tygxc obviously isn't).
No I ment positions in total not legal positions, that is the number if you just put every piece in a random position.
Only if you label the pieces, e.g. calling your white horses Prancer and Charger.
one of the things they check when they check if the position is legal or not is stuff like bishops not on the same colour, pawns not on first and last row, kings not near each other ….
Last is normally king of side not to move not in check, but you haven't mentioned side to move. Some tablebases have extra constraints like no triple checks (but unless you can get hold of the generating code you'll probably need to find out by trial and error). The upshot is to significantly reduce the number.
The best available estimate of legal positions under basic rules to date is the paper you didn't like, as far as I know. And it's not 10^44 as @tygxc keeps trying to tell everyone, but (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44.
If you want to talk about legal positions under competition rules and equate them to game states (as @tygxc does) then you have to increase that number by a ridiculously huge unknown factor (as @tygxc doesn't - he instead divides it by something rather less huge but more ridiculous).
(! Is factorial, it is the number times every integer smaller, so 5! = 5•4•3•2•1=120, 6! = 6•5•4•3•2•1=720, 10! = 10•9•8•7•…•2•1=3,628,800)
I assumed so.
Yes if you label the horses that was a very basic number to start with, but as I said if you make the calculations with the horses and the pawn unlabelled(and the king and the rooks have a “can castle” option) and you include the positions with less than 32 pieces is comes to about the same number, a bit less, my point with 12/2,000,000 still stands.
No it doesn't.
You haven't quantified what "about the same number, a bit less" is, so you don't have a point. The number you originally came up with was (8! x 2! x 2! x 2!)^2 = 104044953600 times too high.
You then proceed to assume Tromp's measured ratio of legal to total positions will also apply to positions corresponding to the diagrams in your estimate, whereas you include all diagrams with pawns on the first and eighth ranks, 100% of which are illegal, and Tromp doesn't include any, so that would be invalid even if you were to quote the correct ratio.
@6897
++ Weakly solved does not call for all black moves that do not lose. Only one is enough.
It might win though!
On the other hand that weak solution of Chess then does not need to handle Petrov, Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Pirc, Dutch, King's Indian Defense, Grünfeld Indian Defense, Nimzovich Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted...
Seriously, no-one is going to buy this as any kind of a solution for chess. It isn't adding ANYTHING to what we already know or to chess theory. The entire, artificial idea of "weakly solving", "strongly solving" etc is complete nonsense because in practice, they overlap considerably.
In any case, the supposed definitions that are in use "ie weak solving is a strategy that .... etc" or "an algorithm that .... etc" is also nonsense, since in each case we're discussing series of concrete moves, which is very much NOT a strategy, except that in its simplest form, a viable strategy in chess is "any series of moves which does not contain any move or moves that lose by force".
So the supposed experts here place all their faith in other experts whose conceptions of the strategy of solving chess isn't just archaic but ludicrous. And these people, being called "games theorists", cannot do wrong because of their title, and everyone believes them, even though they obviously come from a bygone age and never thought well and properly on this subject in their entire lives.
Tygxc is pushing this rubbish on the pretext of educating others, tacitly supported by people who cannot see that the entire project is built on sand, because they're only intent on trying to get tygxc to recognise their own very limited objections.
Unless the foundations of "solving chess" are reassessed from ground up, there's no point at all in any of this twaddle. No group of scientists would dream of approaching an area of research without assessing and reassessing it. A reliance on the potentially outworn and useless ideas of others is an obvious and elementary mistake, which makes nonsense of this entire thread.
I understand the frustration (and I do not claim that what tygxc is saying is true) but do not dismiss the whole subject of solving games. This is not some made up concept with no use in the real world, this is a major part of game theory (which is a concrete mathematical field with everything any other field has), the concept of solving games is mathematically defined.
Although, there is a reason very few mathematicians study chess, because there is currently little to no advancements to be made. all the research has pretty much already been done, we know it cannot be solved, there are countless studies on that, and “chess research” is pretty much stuck.
most research is not made on real games, but on theoretical mathematical games, which have clearer rules and are more useful to study, the few games that have been “solved” like checkers is just a proof of concept or a show off for a big company or university.