Chess will never be solved, here's why

What weird definition of spam do you use ?

Can you at some stage decide which game you're trying to solve and what you mean by a position? You've just been talking about ICCF chess which includes the 50 move rule up to the point that a position is reached that can be adjudicated by a 7 man tablebase and also the triple repetition rule, so 10^44 is certainly not the whole number of positions in any sense in that game; 4.8x10^44 is our best estimate of the number of collections of those attributes of a position that are sufficient to determine forward play under basic rules chess.

You conceded that point already a few pages into the thread, but forgot to update your cut and paste file.

That's not quite correct. You need only a strategy in either case and following a matrix counts as a strategy. The difference between the two is that a weak solution of a position guarantees the best forcible result from that position if it's followed, but a strong solution of a position guarantees the best forcible result from any subsequent position if it's followed from the subsequent position (but not necessarily from the initial position).

Don't try to talk the same language as @tygxc on that subject too much. He quotes the definitions a lot but doesn't understand them and feels free to completely ignore them. He's been insisting since the start of the thread that the Syzygy tables are a strong solution of the positions they cover under competition rules but trying to convince him they're not is rather like trying to hammer nails into two short tungsten planks.

It's not generally been even weakly solved for positions with castling rights but for all other positions with 7 or fewer men it's been strongly solved under basic rules and under competition rules weakly solved if the ply count under the 50 move rule is less than 4.

You can look up solutions here. You need to do some arithmetic with the ply count and DTZ if the former is > 0.

You may have to wait some time for 8 men.

It's still strongly solved under basic rules according to the definition .

I agree...your post should be reported.

Can ypu explain that again?

I understand that weak is from that position.

But how is that different from a strong solve?

The best result from any subssequent position if its followed from a subsequent position?

Does that mean that if you have a weak solve for a position, after one move (the subsequent position) you now have a strong solve ?

No.

Assume we're considering basic rules chess and consider this mate in 20 position.

Many sources will give you a weak solution of the position. Many are reasonably accurate so no positions occurring in the analysis will have a mate depth greater than 20.

This is a position that could be reached from the above position if you don't follow the weak solution (you can make up your own moves).

It's a mate in 30 so it doesn't occur in the weak solutions you're given. However a strong solution of the initial position will not only give you a strategy for winning from the first position, but also from the second and in general getting the best result from any mess you could get into from the first, though that could be only a draw (difficult to lose in this case).

Just my two cents

I don't need a link. A brain works better.

I report MARattigan here for having a missing link

Here's a position that wouldn't be solved in the 32 man tablebase you refer to in the previous post if castling rights were excluded.

And here's one that won't be solved in the 8 man tablebases under construction.

But whether you regard those as reasonable positions is known only to yourself.

The point is what you think is a reasonable game has sweet FA to do with the definition of "solved", whether ultra-weakly, weakly or strongly.

Why do you keep quoting the definitions and pontificating over them when in practice you just totally ignore them?

Took a while to think of that, considerin'.

I wasn't expecting you to understand it @Optimissed, just everybody else except @tygxc.

even if chess is solved, no one would have to worry cuz there is no way someone even Magnus could memorize that much moves

I think that's the main cause of your problem.

That's because it's nonsense. Finite numbers are all TINY compared to aleph-null (the first infinite number). An infinite number is not just "very big", it has a different character to every finite number.

Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).

that doesnt mean anything, thats two points on a graph, and you dont even have the right y values.