Chess will never be solved, here's why

You mean my arguments are background noise to the noises in you head? You've copied a few of my own arguments after a suitable delay, if that's what you mean by "contributing more".

Anyway, I've better things to do than talk to the self-obsessed. I'm expecting a visitor and have more work to do.

If you did have better things to do you wouldn't be adding more of your "and another thing" consecutive posts .

And another thing ...
And another thing
And another thing
And another thing
And another thing

Getting confused here. I thought we were talking about this paper.

1.1 Conventions  para.2 (p278.)

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

@MARattigan, I wasn't and you will find the paper published in Science that I referred to linked from my earlier post:

Checkers is solved

That being said, the meaning of "any opposition" is the same. There is no unambiguous distinction between opposition that needs to be addressed and opposition that doesn't without properly verifying it.  Indeed "opposition that is not good enough" can only really be defined unambiguously by the result that it achieves, something which is not certain until it is checked.

The weak solution of checkers and every single other case of weak solution dealt with in the literature of course uses the same definition and is equally thorough in the way that it applies it. That is why the solution of checkers took years of computing.

EVERY single legal move by the opponent of a strategy needs to be checked to a known result (assisted by a tablebase).

     Who gets to judge what is/is not "stupid"? A panel of five GMs? AlphaZero? Optimissed? Once you arbitrarily omit broad swaths of lines from consideration, you open the conclusions reached to reasonable doubt.

Even discounting the ludicrous terminology, <<<weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition,>>>
actually means strongly solved (again in the ludicrous terminology), since any opposition isn't qualified to "any reasonable or effective opposition".

I suppose, as usual, it'll be another year before someone else understands what I'm saying. In the meantine, that time could be substantially reduced by junking the terminology as it stands and as it deserves.

The entire project of solving chess depends on rejecting bad moves and using good ones. A decent algorithm needs to be written, because I'm afraid that tygxc's "three grandmasters on ice skates" just doesn't cut it. Real AI needs first to be developed in order to write the algorithm.

Nice try.

It would be a big step forward if some people here would take the time to understand what was done in the weak solution of checkers and other games, and to realise that tells you what is necessary to solve chess (according to the universally accepted meaning). It's just a lot harder because of the size.

Elroch, tygxc, mpaetz, and MARattigan are having a fascinating discussion of the topic. Much of it is over my head, but I'm following it best I can and appreciate the effort they're making to provide valid, topical information. 
I would respectfully ask that others who are using this thread to wage a personal feud back off and let the rest of us focus on the real discussion without having to sort out long posts that are nothing but personal insults that no one else cares about. 

I think what many npeople here don't understand is that if you can't reject rubbish moves, there's no way of solving chess because even avter millions of years you'd have no effective feedback. Just a mass of inaccessible computations, unless you srore them, and then you have to sort them. And that's impossible. You have to sort as you go, which means assess as you go.

I think it isn't analagous, because of the size.

Interesting that my natural ally is MAR.

Well, it is certainly enormously challenging and out of present reach.

When you conclude something like that, it is appropriate to accept it, not to muddy the waters by redefining terms in a bad way to stop the conclusion being true.

It's worth mentioning that this rant makes no sense. People writing papers and most of those reading them are already very familiar with the notion of a pure (opposing) strategy, and use the word "opponent" as an convenient shorthand.

     No, solving chess involves finding out whether or not there are any lines that will win by force from the initial position for either side no matter what the opponent might try. Whatever algorithm might be developed to sidestep this task cannot yield a complete proof.

It isn't concluded and the authors of the definitions are confused. If it's to be concluded, it has to be apprroached in an orderly and systematic manner. That isn't aided when half the people considering it are at loggerheads with the other half and both halves are confused by the bad terminology.

If anyone genuinely approaches this with the hope and prospect of solving it, they wouldn't accept the likelihood that previous thought on the subject has been accurate, because that would prejudice their investment. The first thing they would do would be to throw out existing ideas and start again. Sort of write a new prospectus which would outline work already done and assess it for its value going forward. Not to do that would be very bad business. A bit like buying a warehouse and filling it before you checked it for dry rot.

I would respectfully ask that if you do not like seeing confrontation on the forums that you report people anyone that calls others "idiots", "imbeciles", "dullards", "morons", etc.  Not just once, but every single time.  Report actionable behavior.  When the forums are largely clear of such trolls, there will be a distinct drop in confrontations overall.  If the mods don't follow up on "verbal abuse" reports with visible results over the long term, consider escalating to staff.