Chess will never be solved, here's why

@7150

"What path to a 7 man position"
++ For example this one: in 57 moves from the initial position to a 7-men endgame table base draw https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164344

"you would not need to use other peoples work that does solve chess with 7 man or less"
++ Schaeffer had to create his own table base for Checkers. For Chess it already is there.

"why would you even need the table base" ++ Because only the table base provides the exact evaluation draw / win / loss. Nothing else can. 

"you can not force me as the other player to play one of your book moves"
++ All reasonable white moves are covered, black draws.

"Chess is not a forcing game like checkers."
++ Nine Men's Morris is no forcing game either and has been solved to a draw.

"1000"

@7156

"a game where every move by one side is forced"
++ 'For example' means there are many perfect games.
In ICCF WC Finals alone there are > 1000 perfect games.
Nobody said any moves were forced.
If white plays differently, then black draws differently.
How is the subject of weakly solving Chess.

@7157

"1000"
++ 10^17 / 10^14 = 1000.

10^15 / 10^14 =10

So I can fail to solve chess more quickly than you.

@7160

Again explained

Positions                                                             Strongly solving          Weakly solving
All legal moves                                                   10^44                          10^22
Underpromotions to captured pieces only        10^38                          10^19
Reasonable moves only                                      10^34                          10^17

The difference between weakly and strongly solving is a square root
w^d = Sqrt (w^(2d))
w = width, d = depth

10^44 comes from the Tromp paper
10^38 comes from the Gourion paper multiplied by 10 to include 3-4 queens
Reasonable comes from the random sample of 10,000 Gourion positions
If you doubt that, then take any of the 10,000 randomly sampled FEN and try to construct a reasonable game from the initial position that leads to it. You will fail to do so.

You can reduce it even further by not including minor pieces.

You could solve it for the dark squares (just don't include any of the light ones).

Then solve it for the light squares.

Put the two solutions together and you've solved chess.

QED (quite easily done)

With a bit of help from me and you, @tygxc should be able to solve chess with less computation than checkers. 

Fair enough, I was referring to the current FIDE rules.

You aren't taking the 50-move rule into account. If you shuffle your king in the position you mentioned, you'd at some point be unable to mate within the 50-move rule, thus changing the evaluation from "white mates" to "draw". Hence my hypothetical algorithm would force mate in less that 50 moves in your given position to prevent a draw, which changes the evaluation. Using the website, you similarly have to take the 50-move rule into account.

No, a consistent result does not indicate perfect play, but perfect play requires a consistent result.

1. That depends on the weak solution. The fact that there are weak solutions that include no repetitions doesn't imply that all weak solutions include no repetitions. I think most would (though there would exist a reduced solution for each that didn't). Nothing in what @tygxc has said so far includes any steps to eliminate either repetitions or blunders.

2. The difference may not be huge for many weak solutions, but that doesn't mean that it's not huge for any process for finding those solutions. A perfectly accurate player (both perfect and accurate) would not repeat a position that is winning for him. Stockfish will not only repeat winning positions but also repeat positions it thinks are winning (it does't know one way or the other of course). 

Here is a recent game I ran, Arena/SF15 v Arena/Rybka/Nalimov from a ply count 0 mate in 46 position.

SF15 has already blown it on move 9 under the 50 move rule.

Exercise for @tygxc: could he still win if the 50 move rule "didn't matter" but the triple repetition rule "did matter".

As you said earlier, @tygxc doesn't understand the difference between basic rules positions and competition rules positions. I'll have another go at explaining.

So @tygxc:

ARE YOU LISTENING?

I give two examples, both from the KR v K endgame to keep it simple.

In the above game the FEN in the final position is the same as the FEN in the initial position with the exception of the ply count and move number. Under FIDE basic rules chess since 2017 the remaining fields are sufficient to determine the possible continuations and hence the theoretical value of the positions .

The remaining fields are in fact all Tromp takes into account in arriving at his estimate of 4.82 x 10^44 legal positions, so he counts the two positions as the same.

Under FIDE basic rules since 2017 that is OK; both positions are a forced win for White and the positions can be counted as the same.

Under FIDE competition rules however, the initial position is a forced win but the final position is a draw because after 49...Kb1 White has no checkmate and Black can claim under the 50 move rule. Under those rules the positions must be counted as different. (If you don't know how to mate from the initial position you are safe to follow Syzygy, because there are no pairs of previous positions considered the same under art.9.2.)

The above shows a game and variation. If you check the FENs in the final position of both they are identical in all fields. Tromp also counts these two positions as the same.

Under FIDE basic rules since 2017, White is winning in both positions.

Under FIDE competition rules, however the final position in the main line is drawn by triple repetition after 4...Ka1, whereas the final position in the variation is winning for White (again you can follow Syzygy if you have difficulty). So again under FIDE competition rules the positions must be counted as different.

Notice also that if you're playing under competition rules and ask Syzygy for advice as Black in the final position of the mainline, it will tell you to play 4...Kc1 which loses rather than 4...Ka1 which draws. That's why you should stop insisting that Syzygy is a strong solution of 7 man positions under FIDE competition rules. It's not.

Of course, ICCF rules are something altogether different again.

Final exercise for @tygxc:: Find the smallest upper bound you can for the number of positions in the KR v K endgame under FIDE competition rules.

Whereas @Optimissed thinks the rules don't matter and if you have a solution under tic tac toe rules that's all versions of chess solved.

Easier still, solve it for the white pieces (just don't include any of the black ones). Black has no king to checkmate, so White can't win

Similarly solving for the black pieces, Black can't win.

Combining the solutions, neither side can win, ergo chess is a draw. 

QED.

++No.

Oh no! The thread has stalled. Shovel more coal into the firebox.

Indeed, what's the point of having a thread with serious discussion, when @Optimissed is contributing the majority of posts? (OK, possibly @tygxc, but same applies.)

But before you attempt to steer anything it's a good idea to understand where you're trying to go,

And before you accuse people of trolling it's a good idea to stop doing it.