Chess will never be solved, here's why

You will find I have already provided the answer to this.

When solving games you can either include draw claims as legal moves that end the game or make the draws automatic. It doesn't matter to solving the game which one you do (a strategy that is trying to win that repeats moves can either be improved by avoiding a pointless return to a position already visited.  It's like if you win a game over the board after repeating positions once, you could have won more quickly by a more direct route.

It's definitely a problem regarding solving chess .... when to call the draw? After a long time or a very long time?

Perhaps there is no point even attempting it without an algorithm, written by AI, that turns chess into discrete mathematical units, to be analysed further.

Mike was probably being polite. Even your concession that he was talking to both of us is completely astounding, however.

    No, that would be your constant claim. I have proposed no method to make the solution easier. I have said that a solution awaits the development of much better engines or a breakthrough in methodology.

Lol, only to you.  Part of the delusion.  I am routinely more aware of things.  Even now, you feel like MikeKalish was *mostly* talking about me...

Let me give you a little insight.  When people do try to talk to me about you, they say things like "you should stop picking on him" or "why do you lower yourself to his level?".  The answer is that I treat you as an equal by default.  Always have.  You are still, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, capable of change.  You could decide to stop insulting people around you.  You could decide to stop pontificating on topics you have no expertise in and then trashing those who do have expertise.  You could decide to stop pretending there's a cabal of posters in cahoots to take you down.  In a general sense, I expect better of people because I believe they are capable.

You are quite the opposite...nobody is your equal, and you expect everyone to acknowledge that or you immediately dislike them.  How many times just in recent weeks have you said something like "I thought you were [some attribute], but now I realize [something derogatory about the target]" to somebody after they have come out in direct disagreement with you?  Nervesofbutter is one example, there are more.  It's petty and small-minded, ultimately. 

You'll notice over time if you were to pay attention that whenever you say something, it's usually about the person, when I say something, it's usually about the behavior or mindset.  That's the difference between making a pointed observation in an attempt to get someone to see something about themselves without rancor (the latter), vs. being bitter and vengeful (the former).

@btickler @Optimissed

Could you boys not do that stuff via messages?

It's taking me ages to find the posts I'm looking for.

That is an ultra-weak solution as @Omnipissed rather surprisingly points out. He must have run out of wine.

A weak solution is finding the lines themselves (or a strategy for producing them which amounts to the same thing) or finding lines for both sides that prevent a win by the opponent from the initial position no matter what the opponent might try.

It would be easy to post such a solution or even a strong solution.

The critical factor, and what is being discussed, is time, which is referred to only in the definition I posted  somewhere on the thread (now lost in the mists of @Optimissed's IQ). It should also have mentioned space, but at least it was more relevant.

Let me spell it out.  These confrontations can and should end, just as soon as the mods/staff do something about it.  If they don't care about the forums, then the spirit of the ToS will keep getting violated in perpetuity.  If they do care, then they will start to enforce the ToS, including namecalling.  When that happens, I (I can only speak for myself here) will no longer have need of confronting such behavior.  Until then, you're going to have to suffer through it. 

As I mentioned previously to MikeKalish, you can make this go faster by reporting namecalling and verbal abuse.  You can report Optimissed if you don't like the namecalling and verbal abuse, or you can report both of us for spamming/arguing too much.  Either way.

As a staunch believer in free speech, I would always prefer to see problems involving speech solved voluntarily rather than by enforcement. If it doesn't rise to the level of vulgarity or serious threats, I likely would choose not to report it. 

He seems to have taken those words straight out of my mouth, since I have always said that, in those words. I know I like people to learn but that seems a bit much, all the same.

@5495
'Who gets to judge what is/is not "stupid"?'
++ The 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters. That is why they are necessary.
Examples of what is stupid:
1 g4?
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ba6?
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nd4?
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5?
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng5?
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nh4?
We know all of these lose by force.
It is a lot of irrelevant work to calculate all of these until checkmate in all variations.
It is waste of engine time.

@5513
"the only real solution is a calculation to checkmate or a draw in all possible lines"
++ Do you really think it is relevant to calculate all possible lines of 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? to checkmate?
++ Do you really think it is relevant to calculate all possible lines of the final position of https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 until a 3-fold repetition?

'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
A strategy is not necessarily calculate all possible lines.
Allen has solved Connect Four by calculating all possible lines.
Allis has independently solved it with a set of 9 knowledge rules.
A strategy could be 'answer 1 e4 with 1... e5, then 2 Nf3 with  2...Nf6, 1 d4 with 1...d5, 1 c4 with 1...c5, 1 Nf3 with 1...Nf6', but could also be 'maintain symmetry as long as possible'
A strategy could be 'analyse all possible lines', but also 'analyse all possible lines, but when a material advantage is there, trade material to remain with a passed pawn, queen it, and checkmate with it.'
A strategy can be a combination of calculation and knowledge rules.

@5519
"a solution awaits the development of much better engines or a breakthrough in methodology"
++ We already have engines that calculate a billion positions per second.
We already have a methodology.
Start from ICCF drawn games, explore 3 alternative lines at each white move.
Stop calculations when the good assistants determine an obvious draw or loss.
The 10^17 relevant positions can be done in 5 years.
If you deny the good assistants,
then it may well become 5 million years of irrelevant calculations.

@5494
"That is why the solution of checkers took years of computing."
++ No. Schaeffer spent most of the 19 years to write his own checkers-playing program Chinook and construct his own 10-men endgame tablebase. The real solving was from 2001 to 2007.
Schaeffer used less powerful computers than are available now.

Schaeffer only analysed 19 of the 300 tournament openings, needed to prove Checkers a draw.

Checkers is a smaller game than Chess or Losing Chess. 
Checkers and Losing Chess have more irreversible moves than Chess.
Corrollary: Chess has more stupid moves.
In Chess you can hop around aimlessly, not so in Checkers or Losing Chess.
Corrollary: To solve Chess it is necessary to eliminate the stupid moves.

The good assistants are indispensable. That is why GM Sveshnikov named them first:
'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.'

Your proposed vehicle SF15 doesn't know that any of those lose by force. Neither do you or your handmaidens.

There is a strong chance that the result if continued in LLC (limited lookahead chess) would be decisive. They would all appear to oppose against the draw in that game.

Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

Once you've done that we can stop discussing your proposal.

It doesn't work.

That's quite correct and is an example of why the so-called strong solution is completely useless.

However, there is a grey area, where moves may be good but probably are not. Three GMs with their binoculars are not going to spot those birds in the half-light, in five hundred thousand years, let alone in five years.

I know. I don't read his posts though. Gave up reading them nearly a week ago so I have no idea what he's on about but I admit to occasionally irritating him. I'm a slow learner. Should have done it a year since.