Chess will never be solved, here's why

This is Tygxc's main technique.  Conclusion first, create data and numbers to support the already chosen conclusion second.  You know, the opposite of the scientific method...

The circular proofs where he attempts to prove X is correct using an assumption that X is correct as part of the proof itself and the use of assumptions that imperfect engines can render perfect evaluations and determine errors are just subsets of his backwards plans .

Not in my immediate plans, no.  But that also assumes our understanding of 'things' (eg - physics etc) is correct/absolutely correct, which is pretty debatable (this isn't a knock on science/predictability...I used to almost be a scientist once ).

We have to work with what we know, until we know something else.  If we don't, we might as well posit that a magic stalk of asparagus in a monk's robe will give us the solution to chess in a press release tomorrow.  I call this the Vickalan approach (he's a Tygxc predecessor from several years back, but just as annoyingly repetitive in his day).

"Used to almost be a scientist."

Unsure what that means. Sounded like

"a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea"

Agreed.  The philosopher in me just likes to chime in with reminders that it's all probabilistic.

I can't speak to the specific chance that @priestessparagus64 will tweet proof that the solution is colors working together toward their mutual benefit but, sadly, I imagine it's pretty small. 

One can hope though.

Got a Chem degree but I thought the Vogons would be here by now so I didn't bother doing anything with it.

@8783

"annoyingly repetitive"
++ You are annoyingly repetitive with your fauilure to understand that weakly solving Chess requires much much less positions than strongly solving Chess.

I’m pretty sure btickler is very aware that weakly solving requires less positions.  .  The thing is, there is currently no real estimate to what that “less” really is.  Sure, we are looking for a ~10^20 table, but we don’t know where to look for it yet.  So that space is, by default 10^34 44

Less positions, yes, never said otherwise.  10^17 positions?  No.  Just no.

To be pedantic, it's not less positions. It's fewer.

Also, the solution of checkers which has more directionality than chess (hence less transposition until the deep endgame, helping "small" solutions) only permitted a reduction by a power of around 2/3 rather than 1/2 to the state space complexity.

This point merits emphasis.

Unfortunately, it refutes the one node solution as well as others.

A discussion with Ty, who may be very similar to a participant in this group.

Me: you claim positions with underpromoted pieces cannot be part of a solution.

Ty: yes

Me: but underpromotion occasionally occurs as the only best move in the tiny sample of master games that comprises classical chess theory?

Ty: yes

Me: so positions with an underpromoted piece can't really be ignored, can they?

Ty: maybe not with one underpromoted piece.

Me: is there any reason that a position with one underpromoted piece can't lead to a position where the only best move is to underpromote?

Ty: might be, but I can't think of one. It's unlikely?

Me: right. There is no known reason. Then how about the same with positions with a couple of underpromoted pieces. Why would these not occasionally have a move where the best move is to underpromote? Even one in ten million

Ty: seems unlikely enough to ignore.

Me: so no good reason then?  And so on, so that you need to include positions with multiple underpromotions in a solution of chess, and you have a million times more work to do. Perhaps you should increase your fee?

Ty: [thinking]

what is this chaos

In reality, games with more than two under-promotions will be constitute a vanishingly small proportion of the total. However, there really doesn't seem to be any point in ignoring it. Sure, it's an addition to the calculations that have to be done; but not exponentially so. So why is he resisting? This normal continuation is something that has to be analysed. Is it because he didn't think of it first?

It really shouldn't be hard to teach an algorithm to recognise situations where Queen promotion is not appropriate. It would just be a quick check on all promotions and all prospective promotions.

What is definitely needed before chess solving can be properly approached are generalised algorithms that 100% accurately recognise the potential of positions. Without that, chess can never be solved.

It's the normal result of intractable people, holding randomly incorrect opinions, on subjects they understand too little about. It isn't as easy a subject as some of the participants believe and others, whilst recognising that chess can't be solved accurately using present-day methodology, can't work out the direction thought has to go in if ever a solution were to be made possible.

Others spend too much time contradicting the incorrect opinions and too little in trying to think.

Yes, it ought to be repeated, even though it's been pointed out dozens of times.

It's why chess solving can't be position-orientated, since each position requires its own solution, to do which it's necessary to have a database about as big as the universe, to correlate the possible outcomes of positions and place a halt-and-return sign on positions whose outcomes are known. I think it has to be game orientated, which immediately cuts out MAR's perennial objection, regarding a determination of which positions are legal. If only legal moves lead to a position, then obviously it's a legal position. I'm just wondering about the size of a database that would be necessary. Possibly more storage than exists in all the RAM in the entire World. The number of engines needed to sort and access it as the database grows will be phenomenal.

Solving chess fully (strongly) is a major undertaking, requiring a large proportion of the world's resources, using present-day methodology. Therefore the entire idea is mistaken. In truth it can only be achieved by perfecting algorithmic assessment, which itself requires a qualitative breakthrough in how algorithms presently used in things like Stockfish actually work.

Although you have previous expertise, all your criticisms are facetious, to draw attention away from your incapability of thinking well on the subject. I won't ask for a proof of 75% of promotions in the total might be expected to be under-promotions, because statistically it would be much more than that and realistically, far less. Maybe you guessed at a median between one extreme and reality. You're talking rubbish, as usual. All you want to do is draw attention towards yourself and away from correct appraisals, which, obviously, you cannot make. That's why you and ty are almost identical.

I wish you'd concentrate and stop introducing irrelevancies, supported by your bad thinking. I already told you that you have not objectively proven anything. You made an assertion that "it's what other people think", which is not a proof.

You need to learn to argue honestly, as a precursor to learning to argue correctly. Correctness doesn't stand alone and all you're doing is ganging up against a person who doesn't really know what he's doing, with other people who don't pick you up on your errors.