Chess will never be solved, here's why

Not really. Most brick walls have enough intelligence to keep their mouth shut when they've no idea what they're talking about.

You're right, there's one at the back of our house that I regularly talk to when I can't get in. I know I don't like being answered back but this one's taking it a bit far. It hasn't said a word to me for several years now. Must have offended it when I was caught short one night.

@6841

"ICF players play better than Stockfish"
++ That is true, because ICCF players use Stockfish and other engines.
If you believe Stockfish plays better than ICCF players, then enter an ICCF tournament and play the moves Stockfish indicates. You will lose a lot. Those ICCF grandmasters became ICCF grandmasters because they play much better than John Doe + Stockfish.

@6842

"Well you are going to have to start calculating a LOT better."
++ I am the only one how calculates here,
and the only one who presents facts and figures and backs it up with references.

All others guess.
It is like 'I do not know what a square root, or a Poisson distribution is,
so it must be wrong, so I guess a billion years'
Or 'I do not want Chess to be solved, so it cannot be solved, so I guess a billion years.'
Or 'I am to lazy to read, or to stupid to understand, so it must be wrong,
so I guess a billion years.'

Actually, you're the one who's guessing. I think most of the references you produce are invented. Sveshnikov surely can't have been so mad that he agrees with your methodology.

When people, like others and myself, give a proposed, outline methodology, you routinely ignore it. You're only interested in your own proposals, which are so non-viable that they don't bear any comparison with reality. Yet you've managed to con many ignorant people here, who only see you sticking to the same story and who think that perseverance is all. You're actually a menace to others who have come here to learn.

Still making pointless comments?

I feel so very menaced by tygxc. Yet I still like him. I must be some kind of codependent.

A couple of years ago I realised that he never, ever, gives anyone any credit for anything unless they blindly accept his ideas. So he doesn't respect those who can think for themselves, possibly because it's a long time since he did that. I dislike that.

I'm actually probably just an instigator.

@6855

"No one knows the exact number of legal positions in chess. "
++ We do know that.
Tromp counted exactly
8726713169886222032347729969256422370854716254 positions.
Then he randomly sampled 1,000,000 of these and he found 56,011 of these legal.
Thus he arrived at (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44 legal positions.

@6856

"A score of 0.00 means they played as well or better then todays Stockfish."
++ No, that is not true. Centipawns mean nothing, only errors are meaningful. 

"And they did not have access to the Stockfish of today." ++ They do update while they play.

"My guess is all the best ICCF Grandmasters in the World Championship will play worse then just todays Stockfish." ++ You guess wrong.
Just play in an ICCF tournament, play Stockfish moves, and see how much you lose.

"And I will be using only 6 seconds a move"
++ you can never match 5 days / move with only 6 s / move.

"I have 136 games to analyze."
++ We know the outcome from statistics.
The 17 decisive games have 1 error, usually the last move.
The 119 draws are > 99% sure to be perfect games with 0 errors.
There is < 1% possibility that a game contains 2 errors that undo each other.

Even if chess is solved by a computer, it will be meaningless because 1) computer chess engines can already consistently defeat the best grandmasters, and 2) no human can learn "solved chess". A chess game between two humans involved unknown variable like personal preferences, level of memorization, what openings each player has studied the most, etc.

@6861

"talked to a ICCF Grandmaster Uri Blass" ++ What exactly did he say?

"ICCF Grandmaster do not play better then the chess computers they are using"
++ ICCF GM + engines > engine > ICCF GM

Your 0.01 figures only confirm: the drawn games are perfect games with optimal play from both sides and the decisive games contain 1 error.

@6862

"no human can learn solved chess"
++ A human can memorize 10,000 perfect games corresponding to a repertoire.
That would give him a huge edge.
Humans can also play by rules derived from solved chess.

@6866

"I used todays Stockfish at 6 seconds a move."
++ ICCF players use one or more engines at 5 days / move. That is no match.

"Stockfish + ICCF Grandmasters you claim played perfect chess."
++ Not always, they lose a game once in a while, usually by human error.

"Play the Stockfish moves when you are a ICCF player." ++ Then you lose. If you could match an ICCF grandmaster just playing Stockfish then everybody would be ICCF GM.

"This is directly from a ICCF Grandmaster." ++ What exactly did he say?

"This discussion happened on Ed Schroeder computer chess discussion page."
++ What did he say?

@6868

Well play an ICCF tournament and play Stockfish moves and see how much you lose.

@6870

Well, try yourself. Let us know when you get your ICCF GM title.

Then you shouldn't mention the name "Shannon", nor give out all the dubious figures you do, about encoding the 32-man table base upon an atom, Shirley?

Incidentally, when are you going to stop pretending you haven't been invited to apply your "calculations" to that series of games, where the results can be checked against the tablebases?

Shannon did excellent work on the subject and never pretended any more of the quoted figure than I stated. It's the people that misquote him who should never mention the name.

It's perfectly obvious that under a pre-quantum theory of mechanics that a single atom can encode a 32 man tablebase. There are ב‎₁ possible positions of the atom's C of G along any line and only a finite number of entries in a 32 man tablebase. (Reading or writing the encoding could be hard in practical terms, but that's a different matter.)