This sentence is or may be to the effect that next to be solved in order of difficulty will probably be Othello, which will require considerably more resources than draughts (checkers): the implication being that solving chess isn't on the horizon.
I noticed RATMAR making his usual commentary. He's fast becoming a member of the cabal, known to many as the "League of Losers". There are one or two semi-competent members so other members who are teetering on or over the edge of senile dementia are clearly required, to keep standards down or up, depending on whether you're standing on your head, which would be quite a mean feet, could it be acheived.
Lol. "Known to many" meaning, of course, that you made it up and sent it in PMs to other crackpots in some obsequious fashion...
Why are you trying to create a false impression (read "lie") that I communicate to people via pm all the time? It obviously bothers you but I don't do so much and it's usually about chess or something interesting. Not about you, although I understand that you'll find it hard to believe. I talked a bit to Ghostess and hapless when Elroch blocked me, about three months ago, mainly because I'd been trying to get along with him,
no (and you seriously expect anyone to believe that?)
hadn't done anything wrong at all
no
and so it was proven beyond all possibility of any doubt that Elroch was at fault and that he's completely dishonest and manipulative.
no
Also that contradicts your most recent previous lie here.
In my opinion, tygxc is correct and it's about time one or two people came to understand what I was arguing years ago.
tygxc isn't talking about strongly solving, which, in his lingo, refers to an immense web of dependent and co-dependent moves, which are reputed to be able to show strongest play or merely good play (play which doesn't lose) from any point. Constructing a complete tablebase from the initial position is hopeless and impossible.
Ultra-weakly is essentially heuristic, which includes taking games from samples which some will consider insufficient and others will disagree with them. The entire nomenclature or definition-base is unfit for purpose because it lads straight into these continual misunderstandings between people.
The reason so called "weakly" solving requires a strong solution is that although weakly solving is supposedly solving chess for from the pov of one side alone, in that only a sort of repertoire for any move by the opponent is required, it was completely forgotten that that repertoire move against any position has to be calculated by the same method used to calculate a strong solution and thus a strong solution is required.
I did point all this out years ago but no-one understood me except a few people passing through, leading me to form my present opinion of the motivation (and perhaps abilities) of some here. I believe it's necessary to entirely drop the terms "strongly" and "weakly" solving, not necessarily for the purposes of this conversation, which is for us to learn from, but definitely in any new undertaking to "solve chess". The entire idea of managing to construct a table-base for the entirety of chess is so flawed as to be rather ridiculous. Any solution has to be heuristically based, which means a complete and novel breakthrough in algorithmic depiction of various phases of chess games.
Luckily, your floundering in these discussions across multiple threads are still available for anyone to read, so your revisionist history is available on demand...