Chess will never be solved, here's why

1. That depends on the weak solution. The fact that there are weak solutions that include no repetitions doesn't imply that all weak solutions include no repetitions. I think most would (though there would exist a reduced solution for each that didn't). Nothing in what @tygxc has said so far includes any steps to eliminate either repetitions or blunders.

2. The difference may not be huge for many weak solutions, but that doesn't mean that it's not huge for any process for finding those solutions. A perfectly accurate player (both perfect and accurate) would not repeat a position that is winning for him. Stockfish will not only repeat winning positions but also repeat positions it thinks are winning (it does't know one way or the other of course). 

Here is a recent game I ran, Arena/SF15 v Arena/Rybka/Nalimov from a ply count 0 mate in 46 position.

SF15 has already blown it on move 9 under the 50 move rule.

Exercise for @tygxc: could he still win if the 50 move rule "didn't matter" but the triple repetition rule "did matter".

As you said earlier, @tygxc doesn't understand the difference between basic rules positions and competition rules positions. I'll have another go at explaining.

So @tygxc:

ARE YOU LISTENING?

I give two examples, both from the KR v K endgame to keep it simple.

In the above game the FEN in the final position is the same as the FEN in the initial position with the exception of the ply count and move number. Under FIDE basic rules chess since 2017 the remaining fields are sufficient to determine the possible continuations and hence the theoretical value of the positions .

The remaining fields are in fact all Tromp takes into account in arriving at his estimate of 4.82 x 10^44 legal positions, so he counts the two positions as the same.

Under FIDE basic rules since 2017 that is OK; both positions are a forced win for White and the positions can be counted as the same.

Under FIDE competition rules however, the initial position is a forced win but the final position is a draw because after 49...Kb1 White has no checkmate and Black can claim under the 50 move rule. Under those rules the positions must be counted as different. (If you don't know how to mate from the initial position you are safe to follow Syzygy, because there are no pairs of previous positions considered the same under art.9.2.)

The above shows a game and variation. If you check the FENs in the final position of both they are identical in all fields. Tromp also counts these two positions as the same.

Under FIDE basic rules since 2017, White is winning in both positions.

Under FIDE competition rules, however the final position in the main line is drawn by triple repetition after 4...Ka1, whereas the final position in the variation is winning for White (again you can follow Syzygy if you have difficulty). So again under FIDE competition rules the positions must be counted as different.

Notice also that if you're playing under competition rules and ask Syzygy for advice as Black in the final position of the mainline, it will tell you to play 4...Kc1 which loses rather than 4...Ka1 which draws. That's why you should stop insisting that Syzygy is a strong solution of 7 man positions under FIDE competition rules. It's not.

Of course, ICCF rules are something altogether different again.

Final exercise for @tygxc:: Find the smallest upper bound you can for the number of positions in the KR v K endgame under FIDE competition rules.

Whereas @Optimissed thinks the rules don't matter and if you have a solution under tic tac toe rules that's all versions of chess solved.

Easier still, solve it for the white pieces (just don't include any of the black ones). Black has no king to checkmate, so White can't win

Similarly solving for the black pieces, Black can't win.

Combining the solutions, neither side can win, ergo chess is a draw. 

QED.

++No.

Since you don't understand the way that chess may be solved.

Of course, it's only hypothetical but the only reason you personally need reliance on the exactitudes of the rules is because you don't understand how chess MAY be solved and that the only way it may be solved means that the rules are irrelevant.

I've been reading your writings, to some extent, as perhaps some others have too. I'm pretty sure that others feel the same as I do. You pretend expertise but never produce it. It seems like clever stuff but it also seems false and made-up. In particular it isn't what you do write but what you don't that gives the strongest impression. How do you respond to the criticism that thinking chess must be "solved" by analysing positions only as the most or only efficacious method is completely wrong?

It is wrong because given the nature of the analysis, each position must be analysed as if it's a portion of a game and that this means that the only efficacious method of solving is via games, which are composed of many positions, and that this means that the rules are unnecessary and that the legality of positions isn't a problem. So your sarcastic comment is completely off the mark. It doesn't excuse the fact that your ideas are untrustworthy, to say the least. Chess is to be solved in its pure form, using the basic rules of movement of the pieces. Then the result may be examined with regard also to less fundamental rules that do not affect the basic movements of the pieces. For instance, a 75 move rule can be applied and that may alter the solution. A three move repetition rule obviously doesn't and cannot alter it so that is irrelevant.

Oh no! The thread has stalled. Shovel more coal into the firebox.

No just wait and see. What's the point of having a thread with serious discussion, when no-one knows what they're talking about or are incapable of understanding the suggestions of others? Just a few iconoclasts talking at nobody and taking in people who drop by, for a while. The trouble is that the images they're breaking consist of anyone's ideas, who have anything positive to add. One person says it's impossible to know that 1. e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses. That may not seem so much but it actually means that no situation on the board can be assessed and therefore chess cannot be analysed with any hope of accuracy. Another is obsessed by the legality of chess positions, which is irrelevant: and yet another thinks it can be solved in five years.

Indeed, what's the point of having a thread with serious discussion, when @Optimissed is contributing the majority of posts? (OK, possibly @tygxc, but same applies.)

I'm the one attempting to steer it towards a serious discussion, whereas you are either a troll (most likely) or just incapable of engaging usefully.

If you were capable of engaging then you would respond to posts in a positive manner rather than doing what you're doing, which looks like trolling.

But before you attempt to steer anything it's a good idea to understand where you're trying to go,

And before you accuse people of trolling it's a good idea to stop doing it.

Towards a conversation where we explore the possibility of solving chess. Forget arguing with tygxc. Also, stop spouting reams of technical-sounding, irrelevant garbage, maybe?

First understand what it means.

After all, you're just branding as a troll anyone who has positive ideas and who is fed up with the dogmatic drivel spouted by several people here who should know better.

What what means? Trolling, by any chance? Spamming?

I have a good idea. Since you're so full of accusing others of ignorance, how about telling me (us) what "solving chess" means to you? In your own words.

No, what "solving chess" might mean. Just read up on it and understand before posting. (Please.)

Look, in words of few syllables, you haven't a clue. To make it worse, you're a troll. If you knew what you were talking about you might prove it. I suggest you don't read up, don't post links. But in words you can understand, explain what YOU think solving chess may mean.

I don't need to read up on it and I may even disagree with what I read if I "read up" on it. That's because there's a lot of people, like you, who think they understand but they understand sh!!!!!.

So why don't you commit yourself, for once, to trying to relieve the impression you give me, which is that you haven't much of a clue? You understand a bit about computers sure. But thinking logically seems not to be your forte.