Chess will never be solved, here's why

Finished. I have nothing more to say.

We all know you have nothing more to say, but we're painfully aware that you'll say it nevertheless.

lmfao tygxc acting like he's still relavent

You're painfully correct but then we were painfully aware you were going to say that so well done. You said it.

Elroch, you're as thick as two short planks.

I apologise for the fact that you keep saying ridiculous things. You have a master's degree in statistics and you act as if you're intelligent. You are not. You have some specialised knowledge but you don't know how to use it. For heaven's sake, shut up.

@Optimissed not only doesn't know what he's talking about, he doesn't even know that he doesn't know.

A rigorous proof that one player wins or whatever is the outcome of any specific chess position would require a full tree being constructed and essentially it would be a section of the so-called strong solution, confined to all branches of the full strong solution which occur after the position concerned has been reached. Very often, "ultra weak solution" is applied to the original position in chess and is a judgement regarding the final outcome of the original position, as either a draw or a win for either side.

If you were correct then it should be obvious that an ultra-weak solution would be a strong solution, whereas it is in essence a judgement that is not supported by deductive reasoning. Otherwise it WOULD be a strong solution.

tygxc is correct and I know that "correct" isn't a relative but an absolute term. Nevertheless, it may be said that at least he is being consistent whereas I'm afraid your arguments are all over the place. He's "more correct than you". You've been wrong so many times recently and regarding so many subjects. Very recently you were trying to defeat tygxc by claiming an analogy or similarity between 106 chess games with unknown outcomes but which were being conducted by GMs armed with computers at 5 days per move, with the random results of coin tosses. You were attempting to win your argument by that means and basically your attitude is such that I was the only one who challenged you on it. Because people don't care to oppose you. That doesn't mean you're right. It means you're wrong but that you treat people like dirt when they disagree with you.

And Rattigan is also senile.

My wife is demanding that I should go to bed immediately. She's right. Goodnight.

Remember to take your medication.

He didn't, and you know it full well...this is just pot stirring for your own amusement.

OK Martin - you win that particular one.
Good.
Any position where a King is in check and the checking player is to move is illegal even if its checkmate. Because you couldn't get there.
Plus any position where a King is in check from a pawn on its original square.
Good. Couldn't be.
You're right Martin.
Well posted. And yes I should have thought of those but didn't.
-----------------------------------
But now - Martin there seems to be a semantics situation with illegal versus legally unreachable.
And
-------------------------------------
Martin do you get it about the 500+ multiplier I'm suggesting that so multiplies the number of possible positions each time a piece is added?
Yes - some rotations and reflections can be solved instantly because their precursor was already solved - but they should still be counted in the total position count.
tygxc's 26 billion and his 3.7 trillion don't coordinate.
You've got over 55 squares to add one of 8 piece types to and over 40 squares to add one of two pawn types to.
That's 520 right there.
When you add an eighth piece you've got over 500 times as many positions.
By the way - when various positions are slided one file to the right or left - the solution and result might be the same - but its still a different position.
Everything's got to be counted.
Fact - took them Seven Years to add one piece.
Even if the project was only active a year of that seven ... with valid shortcuts -
that's still 500 years to add the next piece.

Martin correct as usual.
And obviously the Octopus-creature is furious with Elroch month in month out ... and probably will continue to be. 'O' being fragile and delicate can't take being blocked. And that block continues to be Righteous.
And Elroch is in the right and the O-guy is always misguided which tends to knock out any situations when O has any accuracy.
Elroch is suggesting that 'weakly solved' can be Rigorous ...
Its a matter of semantics but I continue to state that 'weakly solved' is poor coining of semantics for the contexts concerned.
They should be using better terms.

the terms of "ultra weakly solved, weakly solved, strongly solved" are all well defined and require rigorous proof. most of the disagreement comes from the fact that people do not understand the terms properly, or do not understand the rigor required for the proof.

Rigor is not the same as agnosticism, purism, or stupidity.
Demanding a game tree to dismiss 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? as a viable try to win for white is no rigor.

@10388

"these 3 definitions implement very differently for different games" ++ Yes.

"for chess, weakly solved and strongly solved are both >10^40 endeavors" ++ No.
Strongly solving Chess requires 10^44 legal positions, weakly solving 10^17 relevant positions.

The terms were introduced by games theorists. They have no connection to "solving chess" since the so-called strong solution is known to be impossible, so what are you talking about?

You can't prove a definition, by the way. A definition is a descriptive meaning that is applied to a name. If you keep listening to Elroch, you are not going to learn a thing.

It wasn't a knock-out blow but Dio hasn't a clue about anything, 'specially not the dynamics of argument, where in his little mind he's the one whose every blow is a knockout blow. It's a case of arrested development at about 7.