Chess will never be solved, here's why

Are you then asserting that Checkers is not in fact solved?

Which peer reviewed literature would that be?

I think @tygxc does not understand that it was proved rigorously that the said set of rules worked. The rules define a strategy, the verification of the value of that strategy involves the same exhaustive analysis of all opponent responses.

@Elroch

You must have read the same one I read. @tygxc apparently knows of a paper solving it without any exhaustive analysis. 

@6017
"why 10^17" ++ Calculated in 2 ways:

1. top down from 10^44 legal, then 10^37 (Gourion), then 10^32 sensible, then 10^17 relevant, exponent in analogy to solving Checkers and Losing Chess.
2. bottom up from width 4 and depth 37: upper bound without transpositions,
   lower bound with full transpositions, the geometric mean as estimate.

"what your positions are relevant to" ++ To weakly solve Chess.

"the figure of 10^20 depends on your calculation of error rates."
++ Yes, I have calculated the 1 error in 10^20 positions from the AlphaZero autoplay paper.

"my games" ++ Your games are not relevant. I wait for a drawn KRPP vs. KRP you promised.

@6018
"Are you then asserting that Checkers is not in fact solved?"
++ No, I accept Checkers as weakly solved: the 19 relevant openings are enough
and the 300 imposed competition openings are not necessary.

Likewise weakly solving Chess does not need all possible openings either, only the relevant.

@6019

"Which peer reviewed literature would that be?"

++ The MSc thesis of Allis
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~fernau/DSL0607/Masterthesis-Viergewinnt.pdf 

Well that's the same one I read.

In the sense that we have knowledge that an exhaustive search is a logically valid way of arriving at a solution I could possibly agree that 

The peer-reviewed literature shows Connect Four solved with knowledge only.

with the important proviso that the nature of the knowledge involved is deductive as distinct from that which you apparently want to include in your own proposals.

8.0658 x 10^67 = 52! (number of arrangements in a deck of cards)

10^120 = Shannon's number (number of games of chess)

@6035

"To weakly solve chess how?" ++ I have explained ths several times: calculate from the opening towards a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition. A good way is to utilise ICCF WC drawn games and to investigate 3 alternatives for each white move. 

"Are basic rules positions even relevant to your proposal?" ++ An x-fold repetition rule is vital. The solution without the 50-moves rule also applies with the 50-moves rule. If black can draw without the 50-moves rule, then black can draw just the same with the 50-moves rule.

"it's been asked for many times." ++ I have explained many times.

"check whether your calculation works"
++ I have checked, also to 2 of your irrelevant games above. It does work as shown above. You did something wrong with your version of Stockfish.

"1. Your calculation purports to determine if the position is won or drawn"
++ No, the calculation purports to determine how black can draw
i.e. achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition from white.

"Why ask for a drawn position?"
++ Because weakly solving Chess is hopping from one drawn position to the other.

"Why ask for a KRPP vs. KRP  position?" ++ Because it counts 7 men, inside the 7-men endgame table base and just outside the domain of 32-8 men for weakly solving, because it is the most prevalent type of endgame, because it can be drawn despite a pawn down.

"ONE OF THEM WAS A DRAWN KRPP vs. KRP POSITION" ++ No, all 4 of your positions are wins.

I think you may have missed my response to the first post where you quoted that second figure as the number of games of chess.

@6037

"10^120 = Shannon's number (number of games of chess)"
++ No, the number of Chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082 because of transpositions.
https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html 
That is why the number of positions counts: 10^44 legal of which 10^17 relevant.

Whatever the number of games of chess, it's still a BIG number, comparable to 52 factorial.

@6041
But the number of legal positions 10^44 and the number of relevant positions 10^17 are smaller.

We can be sure the number of positions needed for a valid weak solution (as defined in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject) is much greater than 10^17.

The number of positions needed to fail to weakly solve chess (according to the correct definition) happens to be exactly 10^17.

@6043
What is your number and what is your calculation?
I gave my number 10^17 relevant positions to weakly solve Chess and two calculations to arrive at it.

draughts

Elroch, be honest. Don't you think that this conversation is completely ridiculous? I don't like what I consider to be pseudo-technical jargon which allows participants to hide behind it. Even if you aren't hiding behind it, tygxc most certainly is. He completely refuses to talk to me again, because I busted the rubbish he talks via plain language and nil jargon.