Chess will never be solved, here's why

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?

@7544

"If ICCF players have already solved chess then there's no need to wait 5 years with a supercomputer and Sveshnikov's ghost."
++ ICCF players have not solved chess, but they often play perfect chess with optimal play from both sides to draws, but not always: there are still a few decisive games, i.e. with errors.
Over the years they make fewer and fewer errors and draw more.
They still take 2 years with engines to play such a perfect game with optimal play by both sides.

dam

I swear to god if its "butt tickler" I will cancel you on twitter

wait i think theres just some absolute dingus downvoting EVERYONE'S posts rn.  i propose that we just upvote indiscriminately as a frick u to that guy