Chess will never be solved, here's why

@6042

"Somebody posted where? I must have missed that."
++ Many posts higher here. The engine of the paper is so much slower that the top engine.

"Do you expect SF15 NPS to be the same as AZ NPS? "
++ Thin nodes (SF) are better than thick nodes (AZ) to hit the 7-men endgame table base.

"The games I posted here..." ++ are not relevant.

"But you have previously talked about your calculations to determine the game theoretic value of the starting position and the expected error rates in SF15 which you say relate to the feasibility of your proposals." ++ Yes, both are relevant. 

"if you post your calculations" ++ I have posted and reposted calculations several times.

"the games you base your calculations on are played by the vehicle you intend to use"
++ I have no 10^9 nodes / s cloud engine at my disposal.

"you have the exact values for the time used" ++ It can be extrapolated.

"you try them out on my games" ++ I have posted above 2 of your irrelevant games and pointed out you have a problem with your Stockfish version.

"Would the anomalies include KNN vs KP" ++ Yes, because of KNN vs. K

"KRBN vs KQR" ++ No

"KRPP vs KRP" ++ No

"try them on my games here" ++ I have posted above on some of your games and pointed out you have a problem with your Stockfish version.

"++ Rook endings will occur most and are most relevant to weakly solving chess.
I ask again; how is that relevant to your calculation?"
++ Because KRPP vs. KRP draws turn up frequently in weakly solving Chess.

"you're considering games with the 50 move rule in effect so it's a draw."
++ It is a position that does not show up in solving Chess.
Most of the ICCF WC draws >99% sure to be perfect games do not even reach 50 moves.
In none of the ICCF WC games is the 50-moves rule triggered.
7-men table base wins can be claimed if they exceed 50 moves without pawn move or capture, but such claims do not happen.

"The 50 move rule was triggered in some of the games I posted."
++ That proves those games are not relevant to weakly solving Chess.

"In ICCF games the players preder to agree a draw or play a triple repetition because they get to the pub quicker." ++ You have no clue. They play for years on a game.
This for example is the last finished game: ends with a perpetual check i.e. 3-fold repetition https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164320 

"Totally irrelevant to your calculations." ++ Totally relevant as example of perfect play.

"I don't propose a drawn KRPP vs KRP position in particular." ++ I do.

"If your calculations work they should work irrespective of material or theoretical result."
++ No. We are talking about weakly solving Chess, thus about optimal play by both players. Positions that do not result from optimal play are not relevant: they do not show up.

"you try your calculations on each of the sets of games I posted"
++ I posted a couple of those above and pointed out you have a problem with your Stockfish version. On my desktop the top 1 move coincides with a table base exact move.

"not just the games from the drawn KRPP vs KRP position I posted."
++ You did not post any drawn KRPP vs. KRP: the one you posted is a win.

"Black can draw from the initial position without the 50-moves rule, so this position cannot be reached from optimal play by both sides" ++ Yes, that is right.

"Optimal play by both sides I would take to mean no errors." ++ Yes, that is right.

"whether the calculations relate to basic rules errors or competition rules errors"
++ Errors are errors. The 50-moves rule is ignored as it plays no role.

That's now about a foot and a half of wriggling altogether. I'll respond later.

@6044

As you did not yet post any drawn KRPP vs. KRP, I post one:

The engine top 1 move is always table base exact.
This is not surprising: as most chess positions are at 26 men, it is only logical that most errors are around 26 men too.
The top 4 engine moves contain the table base exact move.

You love what, your account being closed for fair play violations?

He was also apparently nice enough to identify his next account to be closed ...

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=302#comment-72735805

Oldhead moment

There's also the whole pretending to be a woman while trolling thing...which is why you changed username and avatar to begin with.

Grandad, you thought my account was closed. You've clearly gone a bit senile.

I didn't actually say your account was closed for fair play violations.  What I did was point out that you are juvenile, and that you outed your other sockpuppet account (and upvoted yourself on both accounts, which I downvoted back to 0).  Hopefully some mod will come by and check the IPs and take the appropriate action.  But keep talking .

We should rename this thread lets all troll each other.  

When you give him the rope by entertaining his delusions, you give him the rope to wriggle. He just ignores me, except he quotes me in answer to others. Without references, though.

LMAO
Brian, take your meds

We'll see who's still around a year from now.  Meanwhile, both your assumptions here are off.

More to the point, when can we expect you to stop wriggling and post the calculations you already promised?

@6084

"post the calculations"

++ I previously posted calculations of two of your irrevelant positions. The engine top 1 move coincided with the top 1 engine move. You had some problem with your Stockfish version. I have now posted a relevant position. The engine top 1 move coincides with the table base exact move. 

@6071
"an example from the 7-piece tablebase where the engine top choice is a tablebase blunder"
++ No, there is no such relevant example.

KNN vs. KP is an anomaly because KNN vs. KP is an anomaly: it is a draw despite +6 material advantage. Likewise another anomaly is KB+ wrong RP, which is a draw despite +4 material advantage.

The 50-moves rule is not relevant to weakly solving chess: black can achieve the game theoretic value of a draw without invoking the 50-moves rule, as we know from ICCF WC draws that are > 99% sure to be perfect games with optimal play from both sides: none invoked the 50-moves rule to draw, most did not even last 50 moves before a 7-men endgame table base draw or a 3-fold repetition was reached.

I recall someone (sorry, can't recall who after this time) posted examples of where Stockfish blundered in a 7 piece tablebase position earlier in one of the very similar discussions.

Please can they repost if possible?

The 50-move rule CANNOT be ignored, because a program that did so would sometimes have the wrong leaf values in analysis and could make bad decisions based on those inaccurate values.

@6087

"examples of where Stockfish blundered in a 7 piece tablebase position"
++ That was  MARattigan, but he did something wrong with his Stockfish version and/or the position was not relevant and/or it was only because of the 50-moves rule.

"The 50-move rule CANNOT be ignored" ++ The 50-moves rule CAN and SHOULD be ignored in weakly solving Chess. The 50-moves rule is never invoked in perfect play where both sides play optimally, as we know from ICCF WC draws, > 99% sure to be perfect games. The weak solution of chess without the 50-moves rule also applies to chess with the 50-moves rule.

So why don't you stop wriggling and post your calculations for the games here? Then we can stop all this pointless discussion about your proposal to solve chess in five years.