Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes I know all that. I repeat none of that changes the definition of strong solution and the fact is that we don't have strong solution of winning positions even without castling rights for 7 or fewer men under competition rules. Which is exactly where we came in.

Are you disagreeing with that?

I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but nothing currently (or probably ever) tells you what that efficient non repeating win actually is for general competition rules positions, which would be a strong solution. Syzygy just says TSMYOYO.

I am not sure what a TSM yoyo is , but the point is that the interesting thing is one that has not been done, but which is least intractable. Especially when the practical significance is so little for the more intractable version. That's why people are interested in an 8-piece Syzergy tablebase.

Let me underline that. Solving FIDE rules chess is simply not as interesting as solving chess without a repetition rule, and the purest form of chess is really the one without the 50-move rule either (at least replacing it by a big enough number not to ruin long mates!)

Stands for, tough s--t mate, yer on yer own.

The Syzygy tables are all that are required for playing a game if you reach a position with 7 men and no castling rights because they provide a weak solution of all such ply count 0 positions which are usually the first you get to, the exception being when you reach such an endgame with castling rights and subsequently lose all the rights. In the latter case you cannot repeat positions (per 9.2.2) prior to the losing the rights, so if you follow its moves you will still get the best possible result.

But these practical considerations do not alter the question of whether Syzygy provides a strong solution of the positions it covers under competition rules. It doesn't. As I said at the outset.

(FIDE basic rules chess is chess without any repetition or move limit rules these days; I'm assuming you meant to say "FIDE competition rules chess".)

Don't personally disagree, but it doesn't mean you can't talk about solving competition rules chess, especially in a forum on a site that enforces the rules in question. At any rate @tygxc usually talks about it, even if he does start off counting basic rules positions (before throwing away all but a couple).

I put stockfish against stockfish

They drew the few games I ran

I guess like minded individuals always draw lol

It was dummy stockfish to so it definitely was not perfect play

I've provided @tygxc with a substantial percentage of the number of games he keeps quoting with real SF drawing with itself 100% mainly from positions that are verifiably winning (but also some drawing) from the tablebases. That will usually happen as soon as SF gets out of its depth, though you may get the occasional win from winning positions that are a few moves deeper and especially from drawn positions. The cut off depths are usually well defined by endgame classification, possibly with slight variations (e.g. pawn position in KNNvKP).

If @tygxc had the inclination and time he could generate millions more along the same lines. Instead he maintains that his logic applies only to positions that can't be checked without a big red telephone and just carries on posting his ICCF games and insisting they're perfect.

Here is the last set I posted for him (SF16.1 - possibly the version making the ICCF moves). Obviously none of them are perfect play (and there's only 7 men on the board).

That is correct.

@106109

"I put stockfish against stockfish"
++ The ICCF (grand)masters in their World Championship Finals use several different engines and with different tunings and at average 5 days per move. They intervene themselves to adjust width and depth of search, decide what moves to use more or less time on, and decide when to take their allowed 45 days of leave per year.

All of which probably makes zilch difference. I believe one previous winner said his method was just to follow Stockfish.

It's more than likely that none of the players could do anything but lose to SF, so SF probably wouldn't be too excited about their help.

If they were confident they'd include a vanilla latest version SF in the field.

@10596

"The 3-fold repetition rule is a convenient addition to the rules rather than being of fundamental interest. It settles games when neither player can work out how to win - even giving them a couple of shots to realize a position is not getting them there. Chess with a 50 move rule suffices entirely to avoid infinite play, and Syzygy tablebases suffice to deal with this."
++ It is the other way around. Chess with the 3-fold repetition rule and no 50-moves rule avoids infinite play as well: as the the number of legal positions is finite every game has to end.

The 50-moves rule is a convenient addition to ensure that over the board competitions do not go on for to long and jeopardise the tournament schedule. In the ICCF World Championship Finals an average game lasts 38 moves, so the 50 moves rule cannot trigger. The ICCF rules allow 7-men endgame table base win claims that exceed the 50-moves rule, but such claims, or even any 7-men endgame table base win claims do not occur at all. Only 7-men endgame table base draw claims happen.

On the contrary, the 3-fold repetition rule is a major drawing mechanism.
It occured in 30 of the 106 games.

@10613

"If they were confident they'd include a vanilla SF in the field."
++ The 17 ICCF (grand)masters qualified for the World Championship Finals, the vanilla SF failed to. If you think so, then enter a qualifier with a vanilla SF and see how you get beaten.

Fascinating @Optimissed.

@10591

"there are moves that are simply ignored after a zero ply analysis"
++ Yes and for good reason: game knowledge.
It is unnecessary to consider 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? and put up a game tree for it. We know it loses.
It is unnecessary to consider 1 a4. We know it cannot be better that 1 e4, so if black can draw against 1 e4 it is trivial to draw against 1 a4.

"Trillions in a set of 102 ICCF games"
++ I estimated before that they considered 10^17 positions.

"Guessing they don't matter is acceptable (and necessary) for a chess player playing a game"
++ A human player in over the board play at 3 minutes/move average has to make some judgement calls. An ICCF (grand)master in a World Championship Finals and with engines and at average 5 days per move can go to the root.

"what you describe is trillions of nodes away from being well-described as such"
++ I estimated they looked at 10^7 positions/second/engine * 16 engines/master * 17 masters * 3600 seconds/hour * 24 hours/day * 365.25 days/year * 2 years = 10^17 positions and I estimated Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17 positions are necessary to weakly solve Chess.
So the effort and the requirement are commensurate.

"You are saying it needs LESS computing power to weakly solve chess than checkers!"
++ Please do not put words into my mouth. I say 10^17 positions suffice to weakly solve Chess. Most of the computer power Schaeffer used was for generating his endgame table base.

@10616

"what are agreed draws meant to prove?" ++ When both ICCF (grand)masters and their engines have lost all hope to win, then they agree on a draw. It is pointless to play on in a known opposite colored bishop endgame with more than 7 men.

"the only indication of how the play compares with perfect play is how SF performs when you can measure it" ++ Human ICCF (grand)masters + engines are much stronger than the strongest engine, and the strongest engine is much stronger than the strongest human player.
The 17 finalists qualified by winning in qualifiers.
An engine at 5 days/move is much stronger than an engine at 5 hours or minutes/move.

@10622

"define what a "known" opposite colored bishop endgame is"
++ There are centuries of endgame knowledge.

"totally irrelevant to solving chess" ++ It is relevant to save unnecessary calculations.

"no indication there, just I think it's pretty strong" ++ They are now so strong, that they play perfect games with zero errors. In previous years there were decisive games, each year fewer, now none. Perfection has been reached.

"Human ICCF (grand)masters would lose 100% to the engine" ++ Yes, but the engine alone would lose to ICCF (grand)master + engine, as the qualifier results prove. An unjockeyed engine is much weaker than ICCF (grand)master + engine. The ICCF (grand)master sets width and depth of search, decides how to spend his 50 days per 10 moves, decides to offer linear conditionals, sets the tuning parameters of the engines, decides when to invoke a second or third engine, when to offer or accept a draw when there is no hope, when to take his 45 days leave etc.

"They are now so strong, that they play perfect games with zero errors. In previous years there were decisive games, each year fewer, now none. Perfection has been reached."

We can't conclude that perfection has been reached. We can say that a state has been reached, where play is more accurate by both sides and the potentially existing winning lines in the games are fewer and fewer. The imperfectly calculating engines are less likely to find the rare winning option. There are far more drawing options than winning, so draw is a very likely outcome. This does not prove that missed winning lines didn't exist in ie. 100 games played - It could be than in an accurate game played by todays engines 0 winning lines occurred - or it could be 1, 5 whatever.

Now i'm stating the obvious here but this claim has been made many times here as a given.

" at 10^7 positions/second/engine "

why do you continue to make this error when it has been repeatedly pointed out?

you falsely construe nodes as a full positional evaluation.