Chess will never be solved, here's why

@6118
"you should have used Syzygy"
++ I used Syzygy, but it does not matter.
Syzygy is just more compact than Nalimov, so it fits on a hard disk.
The core information is the same: draw / win / loss.

@6119

"Like Sveshnikov, Kasparov is 100% reliable."
++ Kasparov was proven wrong and I have proven Sveshnikov right:
Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years.
Chess players are more reliable when they speak of Chess than when they speak of themselves.

31,536 million positions in a year @ 1000 per second. Everyone is guessing here. Don't pretend you aren't. I think there's far more work to be done than some people realise. Sorting, comparisons, etc. Assessing one position means assessing millions of positions, or haven't you worked that out? There's interchangeability but that comes at a price: that of comparing or sorting. I don't think you'll get 1000 per second and the three GMs aren't going to be good for much more than 30 per day on average between them. So forget them.

10 ^17 positions is roughly 3 x 10^7 years, or 30 million years. And 10 ^17 is an underestimate, due partly to the work that has to be done seperating your 10^17 relevant positions from the rest.

You're talking complete nonsense. Even only 10 ^17 positions at 1000 per second is rather a lot of years. 

@6118
"you should have used Syzygy"
++ I used Syzygy, but it does not matter.
Syzygy is just more compact than Nalimov, so it fits on a hard disk.
The core information is the same: draw / win / loss.

@6131

"evaluating positions given 1 billionth of a second"
++ They evaluate 1 billion positions per second.
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis 

"You need to evaluate every single one of the positions reachable by a legal move in order to select your magic four best moves." ++ Yes, that takes 17 s.

@6116

""Then generate a complete set of games.""

++ Here are 4 relevant KRPP vs. KRP draws.

Not what I'd call a complete set of games.

You don't say what think time was used. You've produced one game for each position - how do apply your calculation to determine the game theoretic value of each position from those?

In all of these the top 1 engine move was table base exact.

This sustains:

A table base exact move is among the top 4 moves of a 10^9 positions / s engine running for 17 s with 1 error in 10^20 positions.

This was extrapolated from the 10,000 + 1,000 AlphaZero games.

It doesn't contradict it.

You claim it's generally true, so you would need rather a lot of confirmatory examples to sustain the conjecture or even to lend it credibility.

On the other hand you need only one counterexample to discredit it, which I think you'll find among the games I spent so much time preparing for you (which are equally relevant to the correctness of your calculation).

You can settle the matter to your own and everyone else's satisfaction by applying your calculations to the examples I posted here.

I invite you (as you invited me here) to "Show it or shut it". (But this time the onus of proof is correctly placed.)

Speaking of yourself, apparently you don't know what a proof is. You come over, more and more, like an obsessive 11 year old of average ability, with too much self-confidence, who still believes in Father Christmas. 

I'm still following.....fascinated....intrigued....in awe. Epic debate and I don't know who's right, if anyone....although I find myself leaning one way or another occasionally. 

@6134

[Deleted text reinserted: You don't say what think time was used. You've produced one game for each position -]"how do apply your calculation to determine the game theoretic value"
++ You are confused.

You do your best in that respect.

The game-theoretic value of a draw is determined from the 1469 ICCF WC games, that is the closest to perfect play we have: 1104 of those games are with optimal play from both sides.

Really? I think some of the examples I posted are demonstrably perfect play by both sides. Why don't you check?

The game-theoretic value of a draw also follows from a deductive argument. To win you need to queen a pawn, i.e. you need an advantage of 1 pawn or more. 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win. You cannot queen a tempo.

To complete your deductive argument you still need to decide if 3 tempi are worth 1 pawn by weight or volume. You haven't settled that yet.

"It doesn't contradict it."
++ Yes, that is right. You suggested some 7-men endgame might contradict it, but none did.

Only because you haven't got round to checking yet.

"You claim it's generally true" ++ Yes, for positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.

What about positions relevant to checking if it's true?

"you would need rather a lot of confirmatory examples to sustain the conjecture"
++ The thesis was extrapolated from the AlphaZero paper. That is what lends it credibility.

That rather depends on whether your method of extrapolation is correct. Why don't you check and find out. I've provided you with 37 games where, unlike the games in the AlphaZero paper, you have perfect information.

"you need only one counterexample to discredit it"
++ Yes: 'No number of experiments can prove me right, one can prove me wrong' - Einstein

Exactly.

"you'll find among the games I spent so much time preparing"
++ The 2 I posted did not contradict.

I don't think they were among the games I spent so much time preparing, but I think you'll find several there too.

More to the point I think Einstein would probably have been able to find at least one that did contradict.

The KNN vs. KP is irrelevant: 5 men, not 7, not a draw, a known anomaly: an engine can only detect the checkmate if its calculation depth exceeds the distance to mate otherwise the engine is happy to win the pawn increasing its perceived advantage from +5 to +6, but spoiling the win.

It fails on that one in particular. That makes it relevant to verifying if your calculation holds water.

You claim your calculation can determine if the starting position is a win or a draw, so saying that positions that are not draws are irrelevant to checking its correctness makes no sense. Since it also doesn't refer to the number of men neither does saying it has 5 men not 7.  (The starting position in your 1469 ICCF WC games probably didn't have 7 men either.)

I invited you here to "Show it or shut it". You have done neither so far. Do you plan to?

And you're still chopping out bits of the post you respond to to alter the context. 

I’m in agreement with you Mike.