Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yeah, but have you ever seen a right triangle? I'd prefer basically anything else.

Perhaps that doesn't align with most normal perceptions of slavery but I'll take your point because, for you, it's a special relationship. Quite similar to the one I have with my wife, after being with her nearly 40 years. In your case, I wonder how much the significant person's actions and ways of living are an image created by something that can be considered akin to a propaganda industry? Even so, I don't doubt that many people can and do form a special, personal bond with the subject of such an image, which helps them during the course of their lives. I also wonder, though, what would be your reaction to the suggestion that such help may not the product of the subject of the image (being held up as an example of rightness and goodness) so much as the product of the strong feeling of trust in itself.

As I've pointed out in #7961, and subsequently: 

(a) You're not talking about weakly solved; the definition you're quoting is flawed. 

(b) You may be talking about that definition but you're proposing to completely ignore it.

As you're completely ignoring his demonstrated modus operandi.

You're both badly programmed robots, not trolls, maybe. One as badly programmed as the other.

"Hence Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions relevant to weakly solving Chess." is a math error.  there is no reason to take the square root.  

That estimate would be in line with the empirical number for checkers (on a log scale).

@tygxc your 10^17 calculation relies on a pre existing algorithm that creates the best move for ____ on any given position.  im surprised but also not surprised that no one else was able to point this out.

Every flaw in his arguments has been pointed out. I for one no longer argue against him. He relies on an algorithm and yet it has been made very clear that there's no algorithm which is reliable. Brain dead.

That's a good point. If there is the capability of exhaustively solving chess for 7 pieces - one would think that it's theoretically possible to solve it for 32 pieces, especially if those 32 pieces all start from the same position.

That's been discussed extensively. It isn't possible and never will be at current or projected computing speeds. Billions of years .... at least.

When people make the mistake of listening to tygxc, they're going to get very confused. He's talking about a weak solution, which is supposed to be those moves which achieve the game state against any opposition. He calls it a strategy, which it isn't. Anyway, he proposes considerable pruning of the search tree based on removing lines which basically aren't good chess. How are they recognised? By grandmasters, apparently. Even accepting all this nonsense, his proposal of 5 years is not possible. It would take that long to design the project.

It's merely ~100 times harder for each of the additional 25 pieces - lol. And the starting position doesn't help enough.

you guys are thinking in the wrong way, define what it means to solve chess? Is it just computing every possibility? I thought chess was just a game to have fun with???

i wonder how chess could be solved and what you mean by that

     Enquiring minds want to know whether there is any way that white (or black) can win by force from the starting position no matter what the other side does, or whether the game will be drawn if neither makes the smallest mistake.

But if the question is simply: Can chess be solved?
The answer is: Yes.

Then, the next question: Will it take a billion years?

Perhaps. But what if we showed a cellphone to somebody during the 17th century? If they didn't burn you as a witch first, they wouldn't believe that such technology would be possible for "a billion years" if at all.

optimissed its one thing to call someone's bs, but its another thing entirely to start bullying and being all around cringe.  u r starting to be the latter.

@7773

"there is no reason to take the square root"
++ There is. On move 1 white has 20 legal moves, black has 20 legal responses, that gives 20 * 20 = 400 legal positions after move 1. Weakly solving only calls for 1 black move to draw, thus only 20 * 1 = 20 = Sqrt (400) relevant positions after move 1 to weakly solve Chess.

Likewise after d moves i.e. 2d ply and w candidate moves that do not transpose there are w^(2d) legal positions of which only w^d = Sqrt (w^(2d)) are relevant to weakly solving Chess.
That is where the square root comes from.

@7784

"is any way that white (or black) can win by force from the starting position no matter what the other side does, or whether the game will be drawn if neither makes the smallest mistake"
++ Chess is a draw.
Millions of human and engine games show that, especially draws from the ICCF World Championship finals. The first move advantage called the initiative is only one tempo, not enough to win. A pawn can queen, a tempo cannot.