@5535
"doesn't know that any of those lose by force"
++ I know all of these lose by force. Any real chess player knows. The ICCF (grand)masters know.
"They would all appear to oppose against the draw in that game."
++ Playing for a loss is not opposing to a draw. Opposing to a draw is trying to win.
@5535
"doesn't know that any of those lose by force"
++ I know all of these lose by force. Any real chess player knows. The ICCF (grand)masters know.
...
That, as @Elroch would point out, is merely a difference in semantics. You use the word "know" to mean what everyone else means by "guess". That difference means that what you know is not necessarily true.
But still 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.
Does the fact that it's not appeared mean you've already done it and reached the same conclusion, but you still post because you like to troll?
@5540
I do not work on positions of 7 men or less. Those have been strongly solved by the 7-men endgame table base. Do not tell me about castling rights. In practice when a 7-men endgame position is reached, castling rights are lost.
@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'
That's really the strong solution if "any opposition" is considered to mean "any moves".
It becomes the so-called weak solution (terribly clumsy terminology!) when "any moves" is qualified to something like "any useful moves".
Mpaetz is, unfortunately, continually asking "who determines that moves are useful?"; apparently unaware that is necessarily what much of the conversation has been about, all along. He seems to assume it's something to do with his ego. In general, and this is not a positive message, most of the people discussing this subject do not seem to have the mental acuity or clarity necessary for it. So round and round it goes it goes.
"... In practice ..."
Induction from a tiny sample of imperfect examples.
...
(2) We adhere to the definition:
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
...
I already pointed out that it would take hardly any time to post a solution according to that definition, I don't need to talk about how sane your interpretation of "any opposition" is.
What do you need the supercomputers for?
Incidentally still 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.
Does the fact that it's not appeared mean you've already done it and reached the same conclusion, but you still post because you like to troll?
...
(2) We adhere to the definition:
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
...
I already pointed out that it would take hardly any time to post a solution according to that definition, I don't need to talk about how sane your interpretation of "any opposition" is.
What do you need the supercomputers for?
It's to check for blunders by the GMs and the GMs are there to guide the supercomputers. All very logical. I think it's the process they put in place to guide them when they designed Britain's recent mini-budget.
@5540
I do not work on positions of 7 men or less. Those have been strongly solved by the 7-men endgame table base. Do not tell me about castling rights. In practice when a 7-men endgame position is reached, castling rights are lost.
I've just realised this was meant to be a response to my post.
A reference to the user to whom you are responding would be useful. A reference to a user with a 400 rating is not so useful.
The fact that you do not work on positions with 7 men or less is quite irrelevant to my point and you do not work on positions with 7 men or less only because the facts can be checked in those positions.
The calculations to determine the starting position and error rates that you have many times posted make no mention of the number of men on the board, so if they're valid for 32 men they should be also valid for 5 or 7 or 26. I have asked you to check in the series of games I posted here as well as the earlier KNNKP games I posted.
It would save an awful lot of effort because we can all then stop discussing your proposal. Why don't you do that and post the results?
(II won't - and didn't - tell you about castling rights.)
"doesn't know that any of those lose by force"
++ I know all of these lose by force. Any real chess player knows. The ICCF (grand)masters know.
I don't pretend to understand the theory being discussed in this thread, but this response seems rather weak to me...... kind of like "Because I said so". Many people "knew" the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. And some of those people were pretty smart.....otherwise.
@5546
"A reference to a user with a 400 rating is not so useful."
++ There is no threshold of rating or college degrees.
"positions with 7 men or less only because the facts can be checked in those positions"
++ Yes, some positions of 7 men may be useful to check facts, e.g. endgames KRPP vs. KRP.
"they're valid for 32 men they should be also valid for 5 or 7 or 26"
++ Yes, from 32 to 8. You can use 7 too for verification.
"earlier KNNKP" ++ Not relevant. A draw is claimed in 7 men, so 5 men is never reached.
@5540
I do not work on positions of 7 men or less. Those have been strongly solved by the 7-men endgame table base. Do not tell me about castling rights. In practice when a 7-men endgame position is reached, castling rights are lost.
I've just realised this was meant to be a response to my post.
He did refer to the number of the post but erroneously added an @ before it.
Unfortunately, the link function is one of the things that has just been broken by chess.com in their latest random vandalism on the code (the post delete button also vanished). Now the link is (uselessly) to the page, rather than to the post.
@5547
"Because I said so"
++ Indeed, I said so before. I repeat:
@5546
"A reference to a user with a 400 rating is not so useful."
++ There is no threshold of rating or college degrees.
I didn't say there was, I just pointed out the reference is not so useful (unless you're hoping the user you're responding to won't notice).
"positions with 7 men or less only because the facts can be checked in those positions"
++ Yes, some positions of 7 men may be useful to check facts, e.g. endgames KRPP vs. KRP.
"they're valid for 32 men they should be also valid for 5 or 7 or 26"
++ Yes, from 32 to 8. You can use 7 too for verification.
So why don't you, as requested, do just that?
"earlier KNNKP" ++ Not relevant. A draw is claimed in 7 men, so 5 men is never reached.
Where does it say that in the FIDE handbook?
@5544
"What do you need the supercomputers for?"
++ They do the bulk of the work: 3 engines, 5 years, 24/7.
The 3 good assistants work 5 years, 40 h/week to launch the calculations and to occasionally terminate them in case of a clear draw or loss so as to save engine time.
@5551
"Where does it say that in the FIDE handbook?"
++ All positions with 7 men or less are already strongly solved (apart from castling rights, which in practice are lost in a 7-men position.)
The over 1000 perfect games with optimal play from both sides we have from the ICCF world championship finals never go to 7 men: they claim an endgame teblebase draw.
Weakly solving Chess does the same.
Weakly solving Checkers did the same.
@5544
"What do you need the supercomputers for?"
++ They do the bulk of the work: 3 engines, 5 years, 24/7.
The 3 good assistants work 5 years, 40 h/week to launch the calculations and to occasionally terminate them in case of a clear draw or loss so as to save engine time.
The whole of the work, using your definition of "weakly solve" (or "strongly solve") can be comfortably done by one human in less than an hour. Again, why the supercomputers?
Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?
Good news: both of the forum bugs recently introduced (the missing delete button and the broken link button functionality) have been fixed in the last 12 minutes!
@5543
"Induction from a tiny sample of imperfect examples"
++ Induction from over 1000 perfect games with optimal play from both sides: ICCF WC Finals draws. Also from millions of human and engine games. Also from common sense.
It is possible to artificially construct a game that reaches a 7-men position with castling right,
but it is sure that it is not with optimal play from both sides.
"doesn't know that any of those lose by force"
++ I know all of these lose by force. Any real chess player knows. The ICCF (grand)masters know.
I don't pretend to understand the theory being discussed in this thread, but this response seems rather weak to me...... kind of like "Because I said so". Many people "knew" the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. And some of those people were pretty smart.....otherwise.
tbh I for one don't think that's quite fair. If we can say with certainty that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force for white, we can equally claim that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 does lose by force for white, in the full expectation of being right. For instance, there's more chance of the computer making an error than there is being wrong on that, so it's a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Really the argument should be about the grey area, where apparent bad moves may be good ones. One reason this argument doesn't move forward is that some of the humans here are being unreasonable in assuming that everything tygxc says is wrong. It may be that there's an actual probability that they are wrong instead, because much that tygxc says is reasonable but people can't manage to seperate that from the "tygxc says S. says chess can be solved in 5 years" stuff, which is a personal obsession.
It is tygxc's fault really because if he finds himself unable to carry his point, he should change the discussion and talk about the grey area and how he expects GMs to be able to guide computers through that. It's actually the other way round and the super-computers will probably be better at it. That's because humans are better at static positions ... "positional chess". Yet, hidden in a seemingly dull, anti-positional line there may be a winning surprise for one side. If he adressed it he would see that he's wrong about the five years spiel.
The others won't or don't know how to guide tygxc in that direction and he won't talk to me at all, since I told him he's as daft as Elroch. 
Whereas Elroch isn't as daft as tygxc because he has a sense of humour and other positive attributes.
@5534
"applying exactly the same standards, chess is beyond practical reach."
++ Schaeffer only analysed 19 of the 300 tournament openings.
Checkers has less stupid moves than Chess, so solving Chess needs a way to dismiss those.
"If only they had been able to just ignore loads of those based on inadequate heuristics"
Checkers is more tactical, so calculation is enough. I advocate adequate heuristics only.
"aimlessly" is a meaningless term only suitable for obfuscation.
1 a4, 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Ng1 are examples of aimless.
"In checkers, the majority of positions where each side possesses at least one king are reversible." ++ That is correct, but 1) many positions have no king at either side, and
2) many of those that have a king are in the table base.
"Solving chess involves RIGOROUSLY showing moves to be "stupid""
++ That is why Sveshnikov called for GOOD assistants, e.g. (ICCF) (grand)masters.
"Sveshnikov was a chessplayer" ++ And even more a chess analyst and a teacher of analysis.
(1) Chess is a different game, and thus requires a different solution,
part like Checkers, part like Losing Chess, part like Connect Four.
(2) We adhere to the definition:
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
'the game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally'
A strategy can mean a full or partial calculation like Checkers or Losing Chess,
but also a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination of both.