Chess will never be solved, here's why

I didn't say it could be completed, I said it was the only valid method currently underway.  Your method will not work, and certainly not in the timeframe you claim, as has been pointed out to you countless times now by numerous posters.

@8674

"I said it was the only valid method currently underway."
++ Only an 8-men endgame table base is underway.
It is no valid method as it takes up too much time: billions of years and storage: 10^44 bit.
That is not how Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers: he only generated a 10-men endgame table base and then calculated towards it from the initial position.
That is just what Sveshnikov proposed to do in 5 years for Chess.

"Your method will not work" ++ It works, it worked for Checkers.

"not the the timeframe you claim" ++ It does. Three 10^9 nodes/s cloud engines piloted by 3 grandmasters can in 5 years exhaust all 10^17 positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.

"pointed out to you countless times now by numerous posters"
++ By ignorant posters, like yourself: you erroneously take the prohibitive time to strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base as the same time to weakly solve Chess.

tgyxc, your proposed method is flawed. There's no doubt.

Congratulations!

You managed to forget the explicit example I posted in #8670, which no tablebase constructed using current methods solves ultra-weakly, weakly or strongly in chess with 50 move and 3-fold repetition rules (like the version you claim you will solve) - in the space of one post.

No wonder you can't remember all the other occasions I've pointed this out to you.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you claim you will solve 32 man chess, if you don't even understand the first thing about the solutions we already have for 7 and fewer men?

(And it's still not 10^44; not even under basic rules.) 

I think that not having a clue causes most of it.

You realllllly need to re read some stuff.

you seem to be under the impression that this was a rules dispute.

it isn’t.  

Tygxc are you still holding on to that gm quote you took out of context?  I just checked, and you still haven’t proved that chess is a draw.

Tygxc you also still haven’t owned up to the mistake in your “refutation “  of my strategy stealing counter proof

Honestly, I don't have a clue what you're talking about but I think you're out of your depth.

Don't say what you think something is not. Please try to inform me what you think it is and what your complaint is because you're just coming over as unfocussed and a bit mad.

If you don’t know what I am talking about why did you make the comment

Once again...saying that tablebases are the only valid method underway right now (and an 8 man tablebase is a step towards a solution, since each successive tablebase stacks) does not mean the same thing you claim in your last sentence.  Discernment is a challenge for you, which makes your pursuit of this topic that much more implausible.

Ey yo btickler as a veteran of this thread, could u   Point me to the last time someone made a proof that tygxc’s strategy stealing claim is impossible?

Don't know that one, sorry .  

That’s fine dw

That is, black can't have a winning game by force because it could only result from a zugzwang and if black has a strategy to try for a zugzwang, white can avoid it by losing a move.

Elroch argued that such a strategy is hindered because it applies at EVERY move: that is, if white loses a move, black can lose another one and potentially on every move, so that the strategy stealing may be impossible.

I didn't think he was correct. I also pointed out that it would turn chess into a strategic game where it is the correct strategy to lose moves. It's "obviously" not true, since all evidence is that the player ahead in development stands more chance of winning.

Firstly, the strategy stealing strategy is never necessary. Secondly, if that's incorrect, it's still impossible to prove it incorrect, which would rest on a strong solution of chess being achieved, imho.

I meant I don't know where Tygxc last posted about it prior to this go around. 

Chess is not a game that lends itself to stealing strategies, because check forces a break in any such copycat behaviors, move-losing contests, etc.  Ultra-weakly solved games that have stealing strategies generally do not have any forced response rules constructs like check in them.  So, I am not worried about ultra weakly solving chess, and that is why there has been little discussion of that level of solution in any of the solving chess threads. 

@Optimissed, I did not argue that strategy-stealing was logically impossible in chess. I argued that it would be enormously difficult to prove, involving checking conditions for every position in a strategy. This is by contrast with where it is actually useful in other games. The pragmatic fact is that strategy-stealing plays no role in the solving of chess, as @btickler also observes.

Agreed. Also it's difficult to separate strategy stealing (losing a move) from a strong solution as a whole.

I agree that you did argue that way. I also pointed out a number of posts ago, that, without a "strong" solution, I was sure it couldn't be proven that it plays no role. I agree with tygxc on this point. It shouldn't be assumed that he's always wrong. His terse, minimalistic, repetitive, spam-like answers do him no favours. They show exceptional arrogance because it's clear he assumes he can't possibly be wrong and he isn't prepared to enter into any discussion. He's so obviously wrong, regarding his obsessive support for Sveshnikov's drivel and it discredits his other opinions.

However, intuitively I think he's right regarding several opinions.