Chess will never be solved, here's why

These are the definitions of "solved" being discussed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

Wow nice

No they're not really.

None of them mention any time period.

A strong solution of a soluble version of chess can be produced in less time than it takes to  produce a set of rules for the soluble version. Such solutions have been known since chess was invented.

The Wikipaedia definitions call only for an effective procedure and say nothing about practicality or tractability.

What is being discussed, irrespective of the definitions being quoted by people discussing it, are the definitions I gave here and here. (Excepting @tygxc who is discussing big red telephones and @Optimissed who is discussing his mother in law, the meaning of life and his unfeasibly large brain.)

I'll repeat them.

A (timely) weak solution means that for the initial position either a proven (timely) strategy has been determined for one player that achieves a win for that player against any opposition, or a proven (timely) strategy has been determined for each player that avoids a loss for that player against any opposition. 

A (timely) strong solution means that for all legal positions either a proven (timely) strategy has been determined for one player that achieves a win for that player against any opposition, or a proven (timely) strategy has been determined for each player that avoids a loss for that player against any opposition. 

In this discussion time is of the essence, so, for example, the Checkers solution which reportedly needs about two minutes to produce a move, is not a solution of 1 minute bullet Checkers and the strong solution of chess I said eatlier could be simply written out would not be a solution of any form of chess that could actually be played, because in all probability nothing that was capable of playing chess could persist long enough or find enough working space to carry out the strategy.

Sorry. Clear as mud to me.

You apparently decide first of all where MC or SF went wrong in a series of games. How? 

You then decide on an optimal path that should have been played. How?

You then run a series of games in SF starting at the end of your new path and working your way back one move at a time through the path for the next game in the series, after which you say SF will correct SF's or MC's mistake.

Does that always work and why?

Does SF then follow your amended path at all points and why?

You say you then have a scoring difference. 

What is it?

You show:

Stockfish dev-20221221:   7/4/10/14/1/4/2/2/41/6/3/12/1/17/2/4/3/4/17/5/0/11/1/1/3/26/6/2/2/10/14/2/4/28/9/3/2/3/5/8/2/4/6/5/9/8/4/7/2/0  => Average=0.07

Carlsen Magnus:   2/10/10/21/14/23/23/4/30/22/49/8/4/15/18/35/6/8/16/5/11/4/9/13/14/7/5/12/7/20/12/27/7/14/1/13/8/2/18/7/11/10/10/6/4/10/2/4/13/7  => Average=0.12

but the averages after the double arrow are obviously not averages of the preceding numbers between the slashes. What are the numbers, how do they relate to the average and what is the average an average of? 

Everything is gobbledygook to you @Optimissed because you can't be bothered to understand any of the terms or concepts that people use in discussions of this subject and make up your own cack handed versions instead.

I don't take much notice.

@DeperateKingWalk

How does my description differ from what you described?

Are my questions on the process unreasonable? You have only partially answered the one about what your averages are and ignored the rest.

I didn't assume anything at all about the number of moves in the games. Why do you say that?

I understand retrograde analysis well enough. I'm asking you how you are applying it to arrive at the figures you quoted and most of all what the figures are.

I'll try again. What are the numbers between the slashes and what are the averages averages of? Since you say its an average over the positions in the games you have presumably assigned some number (a score) to each position, but you have nowhere said how that number is determined. All I'm asking you for is an explanation of what your figures are. Is that difficult? 

Well, in that case, your definition is also incomplete.  Solving implies being solved for human beings in a perceivable manner, ergo the universe must currently be in a state that allows for perception and understanding by the bulk of humanity, solutions achieved inside black holes must be covered under different criteria, etc.

Seriously, though, the definitions do not cover practical considerations any more than the definition of a hammer explains how to forge metal.  The definition describes the outcome, not the process.  The Wikipedia definitions are adequate to this task, especially for this type of discussion.  

Agreed. But what we are discussing is forging metal. The Wikipaedia definitions bear little relation to the discussion.

True enough, but for munchkins that come along and don't read anything, then declare chess to be solved because engines beat GMs, they are effectively back on page 1 on the thread.

No doubt, but not a lot to be done about that.

It's not just this discussion though. There are occasional headlines such as "connect 4 is solved" or "checkers is solved", when according to the Wikipaedia definition they've been solved since they were first invented.

There is an objective criterion that excludes your thinking - the solution has to include the determination of the value of the game.

This is one hell of a rabbit hole

@Elroch

Only for the ultra weak solution if I read Wikipaedia right.

In any case it does. You just use the strategy/strategies on the starting position and your ghost finds out what the value is.

Ultimately, there's no reason to exist that is more important than any other beyond your relationships with others.  So if you are doing those justice, then exploring the most stuff that interests you would seem to be the best way to go.  Who wants to end their life with a bunch of questions unanswered?

If you want to talk to the Mad Hatter, his id is @tygxc.

what does the b in btickler stand for.

Whatever he says, you'ld probably get a different answer from @Optimissed.

Nothing you would understand.

What is the existential meaning of the username Megacheese?

@7543

"ICCF players do nothing more then use the chess engines for their moves."
++ They do much more. They analyse played games in data bases.
They anticipate opponent's engine moves.

"And as the chess engines increase in playing strength. So do the ICCF players."
++ Yes, over the years they err less and draw more.

"But the ICCF players do not play better then the imperfect chess engines."
++ They do. If you doubt that, then enter an ICCF tournament and play the moves by your engine and see how much you lose. ICCF players exploit the imperfections of engines.

My cheese is mega, what about u?