Chess will never be solved, here's why

.

Hi Martin !
First suggestion:  No need to defend making a long post at all !  Especially when the complaint comes from ...
As soon as I looked at the first position with two knights I felt immediately it was a draw - because if I"ve got it right the 2 knights can't force mate unless a piece or pawn adding to the otherwise lone King - either 'gives him moves' he doesn't have - or takes away squares he needs to draw - or both.  
But that's not why that one's a Draw ! 
I've seen various positions where a single knight could win - against King plus hpawn or against King + apawn.  And quite briefly.
So one might think two knights could or would win even more briefly - but actually - only if one or both of those conditions are present of the defending King's own piece taking away moves or squares.  In special situations.

And yes - I think I"ve got it too - as to trying to mate in a certain number.
Regarding knight and bishop versus lone King - I believe that's always a book win in under 50 unless loneKing can take or trap one of the pieces immediately or its already stalemate or a piece can't be saved without stalemating.  I don't know if that last one even exists.  
Yes I'll look at those games you posted some more.
And I"ll probably be able to post shortly without making more consecutive because the 'guy' will promptly make a post I can skip reading anyway.  

Not the way it works when I play SF from the starting position.

Perhaps we would each lose.

<<And yes - I think I"ve got it too - as to trying to mate in a certain number.
Regarding knight and bishop versus lone King - I believe that's always a book win in under 50 unless loneKing can take or trap one of the pieces immediately or its already stalemate or a piece can't be saved without stalemating.  I don't know if that last one even exists.  
Yes I'll look at those games you posted some more.
And I"ll probably be able to post shortly without making more consecutive because the 'guy' will promptly make a post I can skip reading anyway. >>

OK you've made your point and I believe you. You're paranoid, psychotic and probably a few more things as well, **but you must be obeyed**.

You're btickler.

I'm sure of it by now. Word patterns the same, no matter how you try to disguise them. And he is the only one who would mount such a campaign of attempted victimisation.

And of course I'll skip reading post #658.
And is it Funny?  
Somebody quotes my post and I respond - and he wants me to 'step back'?
Lol !   Talk about not following one's own advice.
Regarding his running to the moderators and getting people muted or banned - its a wonder the moderators haven't given him some of his own medicine !
Apparently he likes to call people 'psychopaths psychotic idiots and trolls'
how has he gotten away with that all these years ??

Haha he just deleted and this gives me "5 in a row!" Oh no, he's reposted. Someone's playing games for sure!! "Stepping back" means desisting with the constant personal attacks and then deleting, as is your habit, to make it seem as though the other person did it all. The way your posts have been appearing and disappearing makes it very obvious. You're rumbled, mate. And it's my bedtime. Goodnight.

o=>3e/break/affect.hit|wood<E,4[chop}

Hey @ Martin ... neat ! 
Both the forced win of one of the pieces -
and the forced stalemate through threat on one of the pieces -
a piece always 'hits' the square it leaves - unless its a pawn anywhere except the 7th rank or a 7th rank pawn promoting to knight or bishop straight ahead - or promoting to rook or knight diagonally (capture/promote).

Hi, Keep this post on topic please, it's gone really off topic and i will check in again otherwise it maybe moved or closed. 

Thanks 

Back on topic:

The original opinion of people here was chess will never be solved because the number of positions is too high for it to be feasible in a reasonable time.

I have pointed to the newer scientific paper and the number 3*10^37 positions.
This corroborates the prophecy of the late GM Sveshnikov that chess can be solved in 5 years.
3 cloud engines can do it.

People then insist on a higher number of positions from an elder scientific paper, though I have shown that nearly all positions thus counted can never arise from a reasonable game because of the multiple excess underpromotions they contain. I challenged all to construct one reasonable game ending in one of the randomly sampled positions.

People then try to multiply the number of positions by 100 pointing to the 50-moves rule and the side having the move hence allegedly twice as much positions as diagrams.

The 50-moves rule plays no role before the table base is reached. I challenged all to provide one real game between humans, engines or ICCF where the 50-moves rule was invoked before the table base was reached. The 50-moves rule is a practical rule to ensure that games and tournaments can finish in time and to prevent physical exhaustion of the players. For the purpose of solving chess we can ignore the 50-moves rule.

The side having the move can for diagrams with enough men be inferred by counting the moves of each side.

The 50 moves rule amounts to being a red herring because it can be put aside.  Including temporarily.
It just clouds an issue already clouded. 
As does repetition of moves and positions.
Such things refer to games - not positions.

nobody has to accept a 3 x 10 to the 37th position because a paper says so.   
Nor reductions because 'nobody would do that'.  
Members could see the subject as about another website or the subject can be seen as about the subject.
Whoever can repeat over and over 'the website said' - and it doesn't have to be accepted.  
"Hey - 3 Clouds can do it in five years!" - is an assertion - not an argument.  I wonder how many times it will be repeated.
On the other hand - is anybody willing to discuss the algebra ?
Possible or probable answer:  No.
I think Elroch has stated he's willing to bet - no it won't be solved.
He and I are not the only ones disagreeing with the assertions.  
I wonder how many times a 'reminder' will be 'needed' that computers have only 'solved' for positions with 7 pieces or less.

That alone could indicate - many millions of years before chess is 'solved'.

All you have proved so far is that you have difficulty adapting your arguments to take account of flaws that are pointed out to you. Again read #581 and try harder. Either answer the points or adapt your argument.

You appear to be making a start on the process in the last paragraph, but it (obviously) doesn't answer the point. You can infer the side to move in only a very small percentage of cases. Who is to move in the following diagram for instance?

(I assume that has enough men for you.)

The default assumption is that it's white to move, of course. It isn't of great interest that it could be black. It wouldn't alter the assessment of what positions can be reached, in the slightest. Only if one side moved a king and then put it back, but it's still of no chess-related interest, because it would fall into the category of positions that can be ignored.

Your criticism of tygxc seems to ignore the fact that all the people discussing here ignore counter-arguments as and when you choose. You'll be pleased to know that I'm going to leave you to it, because it's just round in circles forever.

I would give you the same advice I gave @tygxc.

But I don't hold out much hope in either case.

#665
The algebra is in the paper for you to read.
#667
I repeatedly said to forget the 50-moves rule. It is a red herring. It is a practical rule to make games and tournaments end in time and to prevent physical exhaustion of players. For the purpose of solving chess it can be considered non existent.

Of course 1 e4 e5 hence white to move. Do not tell me 1 e3 e5 2 e4 black to move. White has no reason to lose a tempo, unless chess were a win for black. Even in that case black would not play 1 e3 e5. The position is symmetrical hence it does not matter.

Even an asymmetrical position is the same. 1 e4 c5 is white to move. Do not say 1 e3 c5 2 e4 black to move. White has no reason to lose a tempo. Even if white does, the position after 1 e3 c5 2 e4 is the same as 1 c4 e5 with colors reversed and already accounted for.

There is no reason to count positions twice.