Chess will never be solved, here's why

Possibly not (if you mean the last one you posted) - I thought your assertion was they all were.

If you're talking about the one I posted above, which side would you say can force checkmate?

no kings = draw

#8360 is No, Draw.

This site won't let me quote myself.

How about with just, no Queens?

Such as this;

Test

Nope it will let quote myself, but not the Chess.com diagrams I insert.

:thumbsup

I saw you do a thing, so I also did the thing.

B A

report

CHATGTP

I'm sorry, but I need more context to provide a meaningful report. Can you please provide additional information on what you would like a report on?

what is the meaning of the following passage:  Bah! Now hark, a bumbling barefoot blindside, cast with brazen and bilious bombast betwixt the bellicose brain-bandying of these Boolean belligerents. Hark, and beware - becalm this Ben-besetting blizzard of banal barking, before my garrulous inclination becomes the bereft and booming bane of blandation, and bark and barker both are banished beyond the blithe bedpan of their bunk-bloated Baronies, to bemoan, with bourgeoning bewilderment, the black Balrog boon of a buried, biding, belittling bite.

The passage is a piece of writing that employs a mixture of archaic and invented words, as well as figurative language and sarcasm. It appears to be a critique of a disagreement between people that is perceived as noisy and pointless. The writer is expressing their frustration with the situation and asking for the arguments to stop, as they believe that both parties will be better off if they calm down. They are also warning that if the argument continues, it may lead to undesirable consequences. Overall, the passage is an example of creative writing that uses humor, irony, and vivid language to convey a message.

more information required. what are the parties arguing about?

Unfortunately, the passage does not provide specific information about what the parties are arguing about. It only provides a general description of the situation, using sarcasm, irony, and figurative language to describe the argument as noisy, pointless, and disruptive. The writer does not state what the parties are arguing about, but instead focuses on the negative impact of the argument and the need for it to stop.

what is the nature of the rhetoric that the writer finds tiresome? 

The nature of the rhetoric that the writer finds tiresome is described in the passage as "brazen and bilious bombast" and "banal barking". These phrases suggest that the writer finds the arguments to be loud, aggressive, and lacking in substance. The writer uses sarcasm to criticize the parties for engaging in noisy and pointless arguments that are not productive. The use of words like "bumbling barefoot blindside" and "bellicose brain-bandying" also indicate that the writer views the argument as chaotic and lacking in logic or reasoning. Overall, the writer appears to be frustrated with the nature of the rhetoric they are hearing, which they find to be bombastic, banal, and disruptive.

no. no, large language set, no! you came down on the wrong side of the ambiguity - the writer is the one who blindsides with brazen and bilious bombast, not the belligerents he is scolding. you choose poorly, and note that an intelligent entity could have inferred that the writer is the blindsider from his subsequent statements. now, regarding the nature of the argument - another failure, large language set: you specify almost every word except the key.  Boolean.  They are Boolean belligerents.  Continue your analysis.

I apologize for the mistake in my previous answer. The passage suggests that the writer is the one engaging in "brazen and bilious bombast" and "banal barking" and that they are blindsiding others with this rhetoric.

Regarding the term "Boolean belligerents", it appears that the writer is referring to people who are involved in an argument that involves the use of Boolean logic. Boolean logic is a system of mathematical logic that uses binary values (i.e. true or false) to represent values and operations. In this context, the writer is likely using the term "Boolean belligerents" to describe people who are involved in an argument that is centered around the use of Boolean logic and who are using this logic in a combative or confrontational manner.

In conclusion, the nature of the argument described in the passage appears to involve the use of Boolean logic in a confrontational and aggressive manner. The writer is frustrated with the way in which the argument is being conducted and is urging the parties to stop."

     This seems to me to be subsumed in (1a). My opinion remains that chess is soluble, current engines are inadequate to the task, but it is presumptuous to rule out any possibility of a future "great leap forward" in understanding, technique and/or technology. 

@8358

"concerning the original question:"

1. Chess is ultra-weakly solved for all practical purpose and the game-theoretical value of the initial position is a draw. Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen, Nakamura said that and millions of human and engine games prove it, especially ICCF WC Finals games.
2. Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years with humans and existing computers, exhausting all 10^17 relevant positions just as has been done for Checkers: from the opening to a technical endgame. That is what Sveshnikov said and he was correct: facts & figures corroborate that.
3. Chess has been strongly solved for all positions with 7 men or less. Strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base is beyond present technology as 10^44 legal positions are too much.

Only #3 is true.  There's no ultra-weak solution that meets the definition, and the proposal for a weakly solved solution listed above is invalid.

No, none are true.

@8376

"none are true" ++ To the ignorant detractors.

++ To anyone who has difficulty believing six impossible things before breakfast.

I'm good with Tromp's study and his 10^44.6 number.  I am not good with any of Tygxc's numbers.

I have some quibbles with the number (it depends on what you mean by "position"), but it's adequate for discussing solutions to basic rules chess (suitably amended to be soluble). But

1. It's not 10^44.

2. It's not adequate for discussing solutions to competition rules chess  (suitably amended to be soluble).

Below are two partial games

The final positions (shown) in both games are mate in 16 for White in both basic rules chess (suitably amended to be soluble) and competition rules chess (suitably amended to be soluble).

In basic rules chess (suitably amended to be soluble) any solution of the final position in the first game is a solution of the final position in the second game and vice versa.

In competition rules chess (suitably amended to be soluble) any solution of the final position in the first game must begin with 35. Ra1 and any solution of the final position in the second game must begin with 35. Rb2, so the positions have no solution in common.

The FENs for the two positions are identical.

Tromp therefore counts the two positions as one. 

He also counts any positions with the same diagram and side to move but ply counts  in the range 69-150 as the same as the two shown, because he ignores the ply count, though all those are drawn.

The top Nalimov move shown by Wilhelm and the top move shown on the Syzygy site is Ka2 for both positions, which draws immediately by triple repetition in either. (Another reason why @tygxc's point 3 is wrong.)

It would be possible in principle to produce a tablebase that took into account the kind of difference I've just exhibited, but a tablebase for just KR v K may be beyond our current resources. (It might be possible to solve it as a mathematical puzzle using one's biological computer - I'll need to think about it some more).

An interesting problem you might like to try, is to produce the lowest upper bound you can find for the number of competition rules chess (suitably amended to be soluble) positions in KRvK, where positions are regarded as the same when the same set of legal continuations is possible for each. I asked @tygxc earlier, but, natuarally, he didn't even get as far as "++". He just repeats, "there are 10^17 relevant positions pretty Polly pretty Polly pretty Polly ...".

Still waiting for you to demonstrate what you know to be true against SF, @Optimissed.

It is worth elaborating on my earlier point that for practical purposes, basic chess analysis (with just an n-move drawing rule, no repetition rule, say) suffices in many cases.

For example, when an engine uses a basic chess tablebase for competitive chess with a repetition rule, there is no problem. The reason is that the sorts of problems that could occur would already have been avoided given access to the tablebase.

Say a tablebase position is reached and you fear that it won't work because a previous double repetition of a position in the fastest mate line. If this position had been previously reached, a faster mate would have been chosen, with no repetition occurring.

Likewise every strategy that has a vulnerability to repetitions from a winning position can be easily replaced by a more efficient strategy that avoids pointless repetitions when it is winning.

The special cases I referred to in the second sentence include positions that do not repeat a prior basic rules position as defined by Tromp, nor include prior repetitions on the same basis. Those obviously include ply count 0 positions which, for given material, are always the first positions reached in a full game so the Syzygy tablebases are sufficient for the purpose of game play, Fully agreed.

Also any solution that provides a winning strategy that includes repetitions can be reduced to a strategy that doesn't (though not necessarily easily enough to still qualify under my "timely" constraint). 

But you appear to be talking about a solution that has already been arrived at.

If you plan to produce a 32 man tablebase then you can refer only to basic rules positions and still arrive at a weak solution of the initial (ply count 0) position. No argument there.

On the other hand, if you plan to produce a solution along the lines described for checkers using SF, it will happily repeat positions whether it thinks it's winning or losing which in any case correlates only loosely with whether it is actually winning or losing. Neither, in general, do seven maids with seven mops know any better than SF until the fat lady sings.

What would be your algorithm for avoiding positions that repeat prior basic rules positions for that approach? Would it work without modifying SF?