Chess will never be solved, here's why

Regarding 'tablebasing' - would it always be necessary to use 'tablebase referral' for the computer to declare a position a win for one side?

Example: White has all eight of his pawns but they're all on their home squares.
There's nothing else on the board but the two Kings.
That's ten pieces. Tablebases only go up to 7 pieces.
Yes its a ridiculous position but its possible because of knight action.
White to move.
Can't the computer just rule it a win with no further ado?
I would say Yes.
And although there are zillions of such 'rulable' positions - 
here's the bad news:
They don't take big enough Chunks out of the big number.
10^44. The number of possible chess positions.
-------------------------------
tygxc would like to 'shortcut' by doing ridiculous things like 'taking the square root'.
There's no 'panacea' solution.
But algorithms probably have been written to knock out many obviously won positions that have both 8 pieces and more than 8 pieces and to also knock out many positions that are illegal or not legally reachable.
Again with 8 pieces or more than 8.
-----------------------------------------
Its probably much harder for the computers to find and declare positions and say 'draw can be forced here' ...
unless you're going to allow 'mistakes'.
Including - for the winning side to force the draw.
Which in real games we sometimes see when the winning side is in bad time trouble.

He is entirely honest about thinking he is a genius.

You're both a few eggs short of an omelet, and have been for the entire length of your stays here...it's like Tony Orlando and Dawn. Nobody pays much attention to you, but sometimes you're good for a chuckle, usually at your own expense.

There's no fake sadness. Just faking of knowledge and understanding, and a life-long driving need to convince yourself that you are "wicked smart" when all available evidence is to the contrary. Your family does you (and all of us here) no favors by tiptoeing around your behavior.

I forgot that one of the main reasons why i stopped interacting with optimissed is that he doesnt have the intellectual capacity to answer basic questions presented to him.

reminder optimissed, why did you have to make up a scenario about me that is objectively false?

why cant you cope with the fact that my core arguments about the solutions of chess are certified by multiple mathematicians? you make up the scenario that its 13yos, but as Ive explained multiple times, these are people who have phd's and peer reviewed research in mathematics (btw how childish do you have to be to literally lie to yourself and attempt to gaslight about the personal experiences of others)

and finally, where's the theoreticians that you claim exist that say that there arent multiple infinities?

btw optimissed while i have a few years of psychological training, it doesnt take that to clearly see how you are covering up your lack of true self worth (even though you have clearly trained yourself to think otherwise) by trying to brag about socially amenable activities. It's impressing nobody, and the fact that you think its impressive, let alone relevant, is quite telling. Theres no psychological motivation for you to post that other than a feeling of inferiority, or wanting to validate your own perceived superiority.

but notice how far youve taken the topic? lets go back to game theory, and math, two subjects you are very unfamiliar with.

which line of zermelo's proof is wrong optimissed?

where are the theoreticians that claim there is only one infinity?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes/

(this is almost a dozen articles sent to you by now that explicitly contradict your claims).

you still havent given the error in elrochs set theory. reminder, you have to use set theory notation.

Tony Orlando and Dawn

ur just jealous a him. they say he has lotsa money and some wonderful songs and hes definitely handsome & charming. e/t u wish u were...so dream on lol !

You two are really making weak attempts today. Maybe you need the other member of Dawn...

Lol. You would never get past the first 5 minutes with a refereed debate. Presenting facts that you cannot get around is not anyone bullying you...saying "I am winning this debate because my intellect is superior to everyone here" is, in fact, bullying.

all that talk about winning optimissed but you still cant answer the basic questions.

reminder optimissed, why did you have to make up a scenario about me that is objectively false? pretending it isnt false doesnt change the basic facts of it.

why cant you cope with the fact that my core arguments about the solutions of chess are certified by multiple mathematicians? you make up the scenario that its 13yos, but as Ive explained multiple times, these are people who have phd's and peer reviewed research in mathematics (btw how childish do you have to be to literally lie to yourself and attempt to gaslight about the personal experiences of others).

and finally, where's the theoreticians that you claim exist that say that there arent multiple infinities?

you claimed they exist, dont try to backtrack. so where are they.

optimissed in addition why arent you addressing the literal dozens of sources that directly contradict your claims and the mathematical proof provided by elroch of you being objectively wrong?

I'm not so sure.
O's priority is to post things he imagines will be annoying especially because they're false.
But in his insecurity he doesn't seem to get it that others are not fragile and delicate - unlike him - so ironically and pathetically its he who gets annoyed.

This is incorrect. Using the standard equation for Bernoulli trials with n=100, k=50, and the probability of initial success being .01, the probability of success in 50 trials is 30.556%.

tbf i actually am extremely emotionally fragile when it comes to people posting objectively false things. optimissed used to just be intentionally vague (fallaciously) but now hes just posting stuff that takes 5 seconds of research, from even a flat earther, could determine that what he's saying is objectively wrong.

I kinda am to I always get into hotheaded debates about it then people either curse at me or call me dumb lol and try to flex how they are better than me...

u sure there isnt just a calculation rounding error? or are you doing the calculation with a more precise calculator than google?

also isnt using a bernoulli trial just an inefficient way of calculation? calculating from the probability of not getting a success with replacement is just 1 - (99/100)^50.

No. This is because every successive trial removes a ball from the hat. That is to say, your probability of success on the first attempt is 1/100, on the second 1/99, etc. Your calculation assumes the black ball is replaced into the pool every attempt, which i dont believe the op of the problem suggested.

@Elroch
This from your quoted post above which includes a quote of my post too:
(prediction: O might try to jump in but very likely to contribute Nothing)
-----------------------------------
"Can't the computer just rule it a win with no further ado?
I would say Yes.
It can't. How would it? It's worth pointing out that there are ways a human can think that are not accessible to any chess computer of which I am aware ..."
---------------------------------------
@Elroch I already explained that the computer can assign a win in the position I gave because black has no path to forcing a draw.
The computer doesn't have to 'think' its a win - it can be programmed to do so.
The position I gave is in contrast to e4 e5 Ba6 Nxa6 where perhaps black has a 'path' to a draw or even a win.
I agree with you about Ba6 Elroch but not about White on move with 8 pawns on their original squares and nothing else on board except the Kings.
White wins. The computer can assign a win because black has no play for a draw.
@Elroch this will be one of the things we will have 'friendly disagreement' about I believe.
I say - 'burden of proof' would shift in that case.
---------------------------------------
By the way - the computer could also instantly rule all positions with the black King on white's back rank there as illegal because there's no legal way for black's King to have gotten there.
And also - all positions are illegal with Black's King on white's third rank there with either side to move. And all positions are illegal with the white King anywhere but its back rank.
Because again there's no legal way for black's King to have gotten to that third rank.
Martin pointed out that idea to me. Regarding pawns on their home squares.
---------------------------------
The computer can't 'think'?
It doesn't 'think' anyway. Its programmed. By humans.
Yes you could argue back that its programmed with mathematical rules and finding various positions to be 'wins' without going through all the 'game tree' possibilities is invalid.
I say - no it isn't. Its a completely valid shortcut.
And very very different from the kinds of shortcut that tygxc constantly Looks For - which are all Invalid.
---------------
We'll disagree @Elroch.
Even while being on the same side of the issue generally.
And with no animosity I'm thinking.
(Note: Elroch might be thinking: 'that American doesn't know ...' but its O who would be much more likely to be xenophobic along with all his other narrownesses and phobias)
@Elroch our disagreement might just come down to semantics disagreements as to what 'valid shortcuts'means or should mean.

@punchdrunkpatzer

"if you do replace the balls,..." @Elroch

Don't know exactly what process you have in mind. You wouldn't replace the black ball because you stop when you find it.