Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

@8802

"the fact that there are 4 possible promotions, 3 of which are under-promotions"
++ The fact that there are 4 possible promotions does not make them equally likely.

If we're discussing the total number of games, assigning different probabilities to the promotions makes no sense.
Normally promotion is to a queen.

Normally in what? In the set of all games?
In rare cases there is an underpromotion to a knight for its unique properties.

If we're talking about the set of all games no games are ruled out on the grounds of some ulterior purpose.
In nearly all of these cases a knight has been previously captured.

Proof?
Underpromotions to rook or bishop only make sense to avoid stalemate.

If we're talking about the total number of games, what makes sense to you is quite irrelevant. Or what makes sense to Syzygy, which is different from what makes sense to you, as I've pointed out before.

All the moves in the above are optimal according to the Syzygy tablebase. All the moves are perfect. all the moves are in accordance with a weak solution of the initial position.

@8804

"If we're discussing the total number of games" ++ We are not discussing total number of games, but total number of positions relevant to weakly solving Chess, i.e. 10^17.

You may be talking about that - but you talk almost 100% nonsense.

We are not.

@Optimissed's post to which I responded referred specifically to, "a vanishingly small proportion of the total". (My italics.)

"Normally in what?" ++ Take any game data base. Count how many cases of 3, 4, 5, 6 queens there are and how many with 3, 4, 5, 6 knights, how many with 3, 4, 5, 6 bishops or rooks.

No.

It's not relevant to what we were talking about (or what you are talking about for that matter).

You can do it if you like.
3 or 4 queens occur in less than 1% of games. > 3 knights, bishops, rooks do not occur at all.

"no games are ruled out on the grounds of some ulterior purpose"
++ The subject is weakly solving Chess.

The subject of the posts on which you are commenting is whether games with more than two under-promotions constitute a vanishingly small proportion of the total.

"Proof?" ++ Check any game data base and count how many cases with 3 or more knights.

I seem to remember somebody already pointed out you have no concept of "proof", so I'll refrain from pointing it out again. It gets a bit repetitive .

"what makes sense to you" ++ Underpromoting to rook or bishop cannot be optimal play, except for the winning side in an already winning position.

Do you ever think before you type? Try again.

@8806

"a vanishingly small proportion of the total" ++ That is correct.

That was not MAR. It was my comment about games containing three underpromotions. MAR seems to think there should be many.

"It's not relevant to what we were discussing." ++ It is. This thread is about weakly solving Chess. My point is that the Gourion number 10^37 is a better starting point to estimate the time to weakly solving Chess than the Tromp number 10^44 as Tromp allows unlimited underpromotions to pieces not previously captured and Gourion excludes promotions to pieces not previously captured.

@8806

 "[Reinserted for context:  In reality, games with more than two under-promotions will be constitute [sic]] a vanishingly small proportion of the total" ++ That is correct.

I gave an argument in #8797 that would suggest it's very far from the truth. What would be your counter-argument?

"It's not relevant to what we were discussing [Reinserted for context:  (or what you are talking about for that matter)}." ++ It is. This thread is about weakly solving Chess.

Obviously you have reading difficulties. You can't have overlooked my post #8806; it's the one you're responding to.

It was made abundantly clear that, "what we were discussing", referred specifically to what @Optimissed and I were discussing not what the thread is about in general. (Why you conveniently dropped the section I reinserted above?)

My point is that the Gourion number 10^37 is a better starting point to estimate the time to weakly solving Chess than the Tromp number 10^44 as Tromp allows unlimited underpromotions to pieces not previously captured and Gourion excludes promotions to pieces not previously captured.

Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly, but not relevant to what @Optimissed and I were discussing.

@8806

"a vanishingly small proportion of the total" ++ That is correct.

"It's not relevant to what we were discussing." ++ It is. This thread is about weakly solving Chess. My point is that the Gourion number 10^37 is a better starting point to estimate the time to weakly solving Chess than the Tromp number 10^44 as Tromp allows unlimited underpromotions to pieces not previously captured and Gourion excludes promotions to pieces not previously captured.

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.

Positions with 3 or more knights on one side could be part of a solution of Chess, and underpromotions to knights occur from time to time in perfect games with optimal play from both sides, but only in situations where a knight already has been captured.

The answer, of course, is that Tygxc cannot do that and still hold on to his Sveshnikov number...and he pas amply proven he will sacrifice anything on the altar of that number.

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.

@8778
"alpha zero game database used human-set openings"
++ Where in Figure 2 did you read that?