Chess will never be solved, here's why

this is just for me to understand but what exactly does it mean for something to be solved and what exactly makes a move more solved than another? advantage? and if we're solving chess, fastest way to checkmate? or

There are a few different types of solution of a game, but what they have in common is that they tell you the optimal result of the game with perfect play, with absolute certainty. Tablebases provide the solutions of all the games which start with a small number of pieces on the board in a specified position (technically, they provide a strong solution of all of them, the most informative of the three main types of solution).

The wiki article is a painless way to get up to speed on the issue (and explains what I refer to above).

there is no disagreement here, at least on my end. it hasnt been completely proven that a shortcut wont be found, but we currently have no progress on such a shortcut,.

Twaddle.

Stop trying to obfuscate. You dislike the amount of acclaim Turing has finally gotten...no great mystery why.

My grandfather fought in the British 8th Army against Rommel (he was a Major at the time). I have a ghurka knife in my garage...been in its sheath for a long time now.

As for who is a kid...lol. You collect war memorabilia, but you've never served. You say you can take out 3 men in a fight, but you stamp and whine whenever you aren't getting your way. It's all a bit sad and insecure, really.

Good call. This will probably work better for you than when you called me the Bruce Lee of the forums years ago. Optimissed is much more likely to fall for such wind-up flattery.

ong, chillax ppl

Reporting people? That doesn't sound like something tygxc would do.

would s/o plz report me ?...again ?...Lukey ?

Regarding Elroch and Dio - they constantly outclass @Optimissed.
And O constantly loses. Because he lies as he projects. Among his other insecurities.
------------------------------------
Regarding mathematical induction I was taught that you first prove something is valid for k.
Then you prove its valid for k+1.
And only then - after that second step is mathematical induction in progress.
That's how I remember it. I might have forgotten some of it or misremembered it. It was many many years ago. You could just argue that by writing k=1 as an alternative c then that's already proven algebraically by just k. I remember having to prove initially that it would have to work for an actual known numerical value of k too.
Consider that if you 'prove it' for just the middle step ... that's almost like 'proving' that algebra works.
Checking Wiki just now - it doesn't seem to have changed.
'The second case, the induction step, proves that if the statement holds for any given case 
𝑛 = 𝑘, then it must also hold for the next case 𝑛 = 𝑘 + 1
-----------------------------------------------------
Regarding tygxc - he still continues to cling to the 'square root' argument.
When you take the square root of four - it happens that the result is half of four.
Square root of 9 - a third of the number.
Square root of 10,000 - a hundredth of the number.
But when you take the square root of an extremely large number ... the result is an extremely small fraction of that number.
The fact that the number in its numerical base 10 form is halved in Length could cause a person to intuitively downplay the degree to which the number has been reduced.
Why does tygxc keep returning to his disinformation regarding 'taking the square root'?
Because he knows about the prohibitive size regarding number of possible games of chess -
So he wants to take an almost infinitesimal fraction of that number ...
else everything he's claiming is 'swamped' by the permutations of possible games ...
He wants to take one grain of sand on a very large beach and claim that that is all to be cared about.
It is very similiar to his not caring about limitations on the operations per second computers can do - trying to assert 'nodes per second' instead.
--------------------------------------------
Does tygxc have a 'language issue'?
I doubt it.
Is he 'intellectually dishonest' as MEGA suggests?
At times - yes.
But I'm suggesting that's not his 'main issue'.
Its more like him wanting to apply his 'learned chess subjectivity' to the forum topic in ways that are invalid logically.
You can count on it that O is insanely and foolishly and pathetically jealous of tygxc.
And O is @Optimissed of course. But O is 'dismalized'. 
A condition self-inflicted by him upon himself.
--------------------------------------------
Note that tygxc had conceded more than once that chess cannot be solved with current technology.
By such concession - in my opinion he rescues himself from most claims of 'intellectual dishonesty'.
He admits to that reality.
So the discussion has mostly involved the semantics of the poorly coined 'weakly solving' phrase.
Elroch and I will probably always disagree about the demerits of that terminology.
But its those demerits that have led to the large number of postings here.
'weakly solving' gives tygxc all the footholds he needs to just keep subjectively and tactically working the vulnerability of that terminology.
And to thereby pursue his 'shortcuts'.
Will tygxc himself ever be 'solved'?
Looks like Nyet.
In his mind - he has already 'weakly solved' all of chess.
Years ago.
No matter how much logic you fire at him ...
it may as well be popcorn fired upon the battleship USS Missouri.

It is a 'working' of the very vulnerable and poorly coined terminology 'weakly solved'.
A gremlin at the center of the 'discussion'.
Regarding mathematical induction - I like an idea of 'getting' from k and to k + 1 that its going to work no matter how many times you keep adding 1.
As opposed to just algebra 'proving itself'.
Regarding the logic of it ...
similiar ideas are constantly used in many walks of real life without reference to algebra or mathematical notations of any kind.
People 'get the idea' anyway.

'weakly solved' gives anybody all the subjective opportunity they want to simply arbitrate for themselves and even apply to others 'this is what we Care about' ...
tygxc is not going to let others tell him or decide for him 'what he should care about' ... nor 'what We should care about' 
and I tend to think that's righteous of tygxc.
There's a principle involved.
Its like persons trying to decide for others whether there's an afterlife or not.
Constantly goes on in the world. In both directions.

i think llama got auto/mod muted or smth. I would have been reported into the ground by tygxc if tygxc reported messages he simply didnt like, although i have been careful to make sure my messages never severely cross any lines, so it is possible.

"Regarding mathematical induction I was taught that you first prove something is valid for k.
Then you prove its valid for k+1."

i gave an example of a proof by induction as well as a mini proof for why induction works.

you've basically the idea right.

wait tygxc spreads his misinformation on other sites too?!?!? goddam.

also, tygxc's issues are far more than just a modest definition of solvability. it's terrence howard levels of disconnect from scientific and mathematical reasoning.

I'm glad llama is here.
Like yourself MEGA - llama is a very good poster.
-------------------
tygxc pushes the same stuff in other websites?
He uses the same name?
That's noteworthy.
------------------------------
tygxc reports people?
this is the first I've heard of such notions.
perhaps tygxc mentioned something to that effect?
Reporting people. It can be righteous.
But when O threatens to report people - he's never righteous.
And he's almost never righteous anyway.
------------------------------------------------

Regarding mathematical induction ...
k is usually an integer. A nonzero positive integer.
Could there be cases where k is fractional or irrational or transcendental?
Pi and e are examples of transcendental numbers because they cannot be presented in a finite algebraic form.
They 'transcend algebra'.
Although each of them can be presented as a 'sum' of an 'infinite series' of finite algebraic terms.
Whereas the square root of two can be presented algebraically and is therefore not transcendental but is still 'irrational' as it cannot be presented in a form p/q where p and q are integers.
One third is 'rational' but 'repeating' because its numeric decimal form repeats endlessly - it isn't irrational because it can and is presentable in the form p/q where p/q are integers.
Point: see beginning of this post.

@12402

"I'm assuming the ICCF top players all have access to the same engines and databases as each other - so isn't it rather expected that they'll all be drawing each other in their games?"

++ All ICCF World Championship Finalists qualified for the Finals through qualifiers, so they are of comparable strength. They have access to more or less the same hardware and software and resources. However, in previous years they also were of comparable strength and also had access to about the same hardware and software and resources, and nevertheless there were decisive games, every year fewer. Now none: 110 draws out of 110 games.
That means they were approaching perfect play in previous years and now have reached it.

@12401

"It's also important to note that other than discarding probably lost positions, we can also discard any position that feels yucky." ++ That is what I did inspecting the random sample of 10,000 positions, e.g. this one:

That is how I reduced from 10^38 to 10^38 / 10,000 = 10^34 positions.

"pretty much any opening ICCF GMs don't play we can probably safely ignore"
++ This is debatable. They played Ruy Lopez: open, closed, Berlin, Italian, Vienna, Petrov both Nxe5 and d4, Sicilian Najdorf, Moscow, Closed, French Winawer and Steinitz, Queen's Gambit Slav and accepted and declined, Catalan, Nimzovich Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Grünfeld Indian Defense, Kings Indian Defense, Reti, English...
They did not play Scotch, Four Knights, Sicilian Alapin, French Tarrasch, Advance, or Exchange...

"Strong players play good openings, and bad players play bad openings."
++ Yes, they try to win, not lose, or scrape a draw.

"A solution will contain strong openings" ++ Elroch will insist on 1 a4 and 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6.

"ICCF GMs have already solved chess" ++ Almost. It is redundant, but not yet complete.
Their effort of 90 CPU/server * 2 server/finalist * 17 finalists * 2 years = 6120 CPU years is 61 times more than the 50 CPU * 2 years = 100 CPU years Schaeffer used to weakly solve Checkers.

"Any position they don't play in one of their games we can also discard as a lost position."
++ Or a draw without prospect. 1 a4 is enough to draw, but makes it easy for black.

@12535

"it more likely means humans have less and less useful input, and when the engines play each other it's unsurprisingly a draw."
++ No, it is the human that has most input.
'the key is planning, which computers do not do well'
'computer engines did not understand the main ideas and suggested in most middlegame positions that all candidate moves were equivalent'
'it’s not just about the hardware, but also about one’s ability to make the most of the hardware'
'a sequence that no computer would consider or find'
'Much of the most intense work occurs before games start. '
SIM Jon Edwards wins 32nd World Correspondence Championship