Chess will never be solved, here's why

Why do you think I would want to fit in? That sounds really weird and off the mark. I'm glad that I seem to be making more sense of it. It's a kind of miniature society in action. I think there are people who study online group dynamics. Wonder if they've hit on this aspect.

@8469

"the scientific communities did effectively "vote" on all of those"
++ Galileo, Einstein, Planck, Schrödinger etc. were all outnumbered at first.

"Why do you think these theories are the prevailing consensus"
++ Because the critics had to abide by the facts.

"Positing alternate numbers is not a requirement" ++ 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solve Chess. I start from 10^37 positions calculated by Gourion, I multiply by 10 to accept 3 or 4 queens, I divide by 10,000 as a random sample of 10,000 positions as calculated by Gourion show none that can result from optimal play by both sides, I take the square root as I need only 1 black response to all white moves. That leaves Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10^4) = 10^17.
You: 'That is wrong.'
Me: 'Why?'
You: 'I do not know.'
Me: 'What is your number and why?'
You: 'I do not know.'

"Weakly solving any game requires traversing far less positions than strongly solving it is a false statement." ++ It is a true statement. A weak solution is a subset of a strong solution.
Any game that is strongly solved includes all weak solutions as well.

"Weak and strong solutions are not determined by solving method, only by outcome."
++ That is right, but the outcome of a strong solution includes all weak solutions.
Any solving method for a weak solution requires far less positions than for a strong solution.

Besides: "you have to calculate all the way till the 7-men endgame table base with its exact evaluation draw / win / loss" ++ That is exactly what Schaeffer did to weakly solve Checkers.

I've been interacting online for 20 years. But it would be vaguely interesting, sure. And on yourself, Elroch, mpaetz and MAR. Less so Ziryab and ty. I do think you four are quite an interesting combination and also as individuals. Less so with me, really. They'd probably see me as a kind of role model for themselves.

It doesn't have to carry the emphasis you put on it. It could be "I am only one of 100,000". That's the way I look at it. I worked it out 40 to 50 years ago anyhow. Populations have grown, unless 100,000 is a kind of magic number, like the seven seals or the five Royal Marines or whatever.

I think you're making things up again. Anyone who knows you, knows that you invent quotations. And where did the 80,000 come from?

My character, of course, is one in a million. My charm, good looks and ability to keep a straight face when people like you try to be clever is legendary and is probably more like one in 1,236,000, excluding thespians.

No I have no idea. Are you one of the 8000 most irritating people in the World or is it boring people? I forget. I know it's one of them.

I think people like you, Ekroch and Ziryab ought to try, when faced with something you dislike and instead of making rather vapid barbed comments, to construct an argument complete with logical steps in a nicely ordered fashion. I don't like doing other people's work for them by interpreting their objections into logical steps and then answering my own surmises.

Maybe I'm not playing your kids' games. Maybe I just want to irritate you because you seem like about 4 years old. Maybe because the population of the World was 4 billion when I decided on that figure. Maybe because you're Minister for Propaganda ..... etc etc etc.

Just grow up.

Just 7 More Moves, you guys, until I make yet another 100.

Stopping me would just be Sadistic.

Just grow up. 100,000 was excessively modest of me. It's a base-line figure, based on my proven IQ. But there are more human qualities than ability to complete numerical, verbal and visuo-spatial tests extremely quickly. I'm watching a film about how the Americans won WWII and also Agincourt so shut up.

     What is the title of this film? It would be fascinating to learn how the Americans won the battle of Agincourt.

@8416

"Sveshnikov making those solvability claims"
++ Sveshnikov said in an interview on June 25, 2007 with Eldar Mukhametov:
'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames'