Chess will never be solved, here's why

No-one could ever accuse you of failing to defend your great nation in case it gets criticised. It's admirable. Truly is.

p.s. learn what the word "hypocrisy" means and how it is normally applied and you'll be doing even better than the magnificently patriotic job you're already doing.

This, for example

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more 
 
hypocrisy
/hɪˈpɒkrəsi/
 Learn to pronounce
 
noun
 
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"

is entirely wrong.

Actually it's a dead on description for you.  But here's a better definition:

Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.  According to British political philosopher David Runciman, "Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold".

Even more on the nose, I would say.

As for patriots, you already know how much I eschew patriot-driven rhetoric...of all kinds.  I'm sorry for your loss.

What a wordsmith. Sure you aren't ... er ... ? I mean, not so well? Time of the month or whatever?

Misogyny is just another of your failings...

Anyway it sounds like it. No amount of dictionary reading is going to make up for the lack of a good education but you could at least find out what a hypocrite is. I don't pretend to be what I'm not but that isn't actually what a hypocrite is. Find out. I think they've changed a lot of dictionary online definitions so as not to upset people. Find out what a hypocrite is.

If the pattern continues, a certain person will now show up and comment obliquely, addressing someone else. And no, you don't know who I mean. You don't have the observational powers. But do please attempt to remedy your lack of education and find out what a hypocrite is.

When you've found out, then attempt to ignite your massive brain to work out why it applies to you and not to me. I'll give you a clue. I am not responsible for any errors or sins committed by past generations of ANY nation. You seem to think I am. I was wondering out loud why SOME people belonging to a certain nationality are so ego-centric that they are completely incapable of learning  from the mistakes of others, because the notion they could ever make any mistakes is so completely foreign to them. Not all people of that nation but some. You're clearly one of them and you are hated by very many people here. I've tried to show that I don't bear a grudge but clearly you haven't been taking the tablets again.

You claim to be educated, but this can hardly be the case when you have expressed disdain for and derision of every subject you have claimed to be educated on or read about for years .  Physics?  Twaddle.  Thermodynamics?  Invalid.  Microbiology?  Ineffectual.  Games theory?  Completely wrong.  Philosophy is given somewhat of a pass, but philosophers themselves are another story, since you find fault with them all thus far.  Psychology you seem okay with...but have no expertise in other than via osmosis from familial proximity.

So, telling others to educate themselves is just another manifestation of your hypocrisy.  You may have attended school, but you seemingly didn't absorb much.  Much like your IQ diatribes, your education is something you talk about, but never display any useful outcomes for.

I am sometimes hated...by those who can never seem to stand up to my arguments, yourself chief among them.  For others, not so much.

Yes, unfortunately there's a lot of nationalism in America posing as patriotism.

I would remind you that it's almost always you who brings up the subject of IQ. It's your obsession and not mine. It's also a bit of a far stretch to equate discrepancies regarding a few findings in a subject with derision for the entire subject; and it really shows how you think. It shows that you make things up to deliberately attempt to falsely show others in a bad light.

Thinking about what you were saying yesterday, I would say that the amount of hostility you display very often in arguments you cause with very many people indicates strongly that to have that amount of anger on tap, so to speak, you must have a sort of reservoir of anger in you.

That indicates that you have underlying anger against yourself, so what causes it? Why is it that it's like a button is pressed, especially with regard to some moral issues or issues that you see as moral? And you become not only unreasonable, but hostile and you deliberately distort just about anything, in order to try to show others in a bad light. I mentioned before what others tend to think of you and I would say it's due to that. It's the deceit, the twisting and misrepresentation of other people's statements. I'm wondering what causes the degree of anger you have against yourself. Maybe I could try to guess. Quite a lot of people have already tried to guess what it is, of course. There's one theme that consistently comes out and I have to say that my mind is also drawn to that explanation.

I come back to this thread 995 new posts later and suddenly it's about the early settlers in America, the British empire, and the difference between nationalism, patriotism, and national or ethnic chauvinism? How did this happen?

Isn't this about whether chess will be solved and debating whether won, drawn, or lost in chess means in a mathematically absolute sense or in an "overwhelming majority of conventionally good lines lead that way" sense?

@7498

"Isn't this about whether chess will be solved and debating whether won, drawn, or lost in chess means in a mathematically absolute sense or in an "overwhelming majority of conventionally good lines lead that way" sense?"
++ Trolls sabotage the thread by spamming off topic.

Of course drawn, won, or lost in the context of game solving means the outcome if both opponents play optimally i.e. without errors that change the game state draw / win / loss.

Solved can have 3 meanings: ultra-weakly solved, weakly solved, or strongly solved.

Strongly solved means a 32-men table base, needs all 10^44 legal positions and that would take a prohibitive time and storage and thus is beyond current technology.

For all practical purpose Chess is already ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretical value is a draw.

That leaves weakly solved like Checkers, and requires 10^17 relevant positions.
3 cloud engines of a billion nodes/s (or 3000 desktops of a million nodes/s) can do that in 5 years under human guidance by 3 grandmasters. That is also what GM Sveshnikov said.
That would cost 3 million $ to hire the grandmasters and rent the engines.
Whether Chess will be weakly solved or not depends on when somebody pays that cost.

Suppose there are 10^20 good-looking lines from some hypothetical position until you reach known tablebases. Maybe material is equal. Maybe it isn't But one side has an advantage. 99.9999999999% are wins for the player with a conventional advantage. 10^8 are draws. Any GM is going to see this as a completely winning position.

And of course we haven't factored the 10^50 or whatever lines that have nonsense-looking computer moves in them that only a tablebase would even think about but turn out to be important.

@7501

"Suppose there are 10^20 good-looking lines from some hypothetical position until you reach known tablebases. 99.9999999999% are wins for the player with a conventional advantage. 10^8 are draws. Any GM is going to see this as a completely winning position."
++ No. It may be that some line is good-looking, but if it is a draw, then it is found sooner or later. That is what we see: some lines are very popular and then disappear from tournaments.

"we haven't factored the 10^50 or whatever lines that have nonsense-looking computer moves in them that only a tablebase would even think about but turn out to be important."
++ There are only 10^44 legal positions and the vast majority of them are absolute nonsense with 3 rooks or bishops at both sides, which can never happen with optimal play from both sides.

If we restrict promotions to pieces previously captured, there are only 10^37 positions and the vast majority of these cannot happen from optimal play by both sides either.
Inspection of a random sample of 10,000 such positions reveals none can result from optimal play by both sides either. You can check for yourself and take one of the 10,000 randomly sampled FEN and try to construct a game that leads to it. That leads to 10^37 / 10,000 = 10^33 positions.

Allowing only promotions to pieces previously captured is a bit too strict, as positions with 3 or 4 queens do occur in perfect games of ICCF WC Finals draws, so multiply by 10 to accept 3 or 4 queens, leaving 10^33 * 10 = 10^34 positions.

Weakly solving only needs 1 black response to draw, not all black responses. That leads to a square root: not w^2d but w^d = Sqrt (w^2d), e.g. not 20*20 = 400, but 20*1 = 20 = Sqrt (400). Thus Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 relevant positions.

Cloud engines of a billion nodes/s can calculate that from opening to 7-men endgame table base in 5 years.