Chess will never be solved, here's why

That's not quite correct. You need only a strategy in either case and following a matrix counts as a strategy. The difference between the two is that a weak solution of a position guarantees the best forcible result from that position if it's followed, but a strong solution of a position guarantees the best forcible result from any subsequent position if it's followed from the subsequent position (but not necessarily from the initial position).

Don't try to talk the same language as @tygxc on that subject too much. He quotes the definitions a lot but doesn't understand them and feels free to completely ignore them. He's been insisting since the start of the thread that the Syzygy tables are a strong solution of the positions they cover under competition rules but trying to convince him they're not is rather like trying to hammer nails into two short tungsten planks.

It's not generally been even weakly solved for positions with castling rights but for all other positions with 7 or fewer men it's been strongly solved under basic rules and under competition rules weakly solved if the ply count under the 50 move rule is less than 4.

You can look up solutions here. You need to do some arithmetic with the ply count and DTZ if the former is > 0.

You may have to wait some time for 8 men.

It's still strongly solved under basic rules according to the definition .

I agree...your post should be reported.

Can ypu explain that again?

I understand that weak is from that position.

But how is that different from a strong solve?

The best result from any subssequent position if its followed from a subsequent position?

Does that mean that if you have a weak solve for a position, after one move (the subsequent position) you now have a strong solve ?

No.

Assume we're considering basic rules chess and consider this mate in 20 position.

Many sources will give you a weak solution of the position. Many are reasonably accurate so no positions occurring in the analysis will have a mate depth greater than 20.

This is a position that could be reached from the above position if you don't follow the weak solution (you can make up your own moves).

It's a mate in 30 so it doesn't occur in the weak solutions you're given. However a strong solution of the initial position will not only give you a strategy for winning from the first position, but also from the second and in general getting the best result from any mess you could get into from the first, though that could be only a draw (difficult to lose in this case).

Just my two cents

For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite. It isn't something I would expect the gang to understand.

I was under the impression that it had, although that was based on a post a couple of years ago where such a claim was made which seemed to be supported. However, it's incorrect to imagine that all a person needs to do is to read the posts here and they'll know everything because everything they read will be correct. That certainly applies to reading your posts and Elroch's posts. My posts tend to be more generalised and therefore I make less mistakes.

However, it has or it hasn't and if you feel strongly about it (I don't ... it isn't something to feel strongly about either way) then you probably should try to find a link to something that supports your belief that it hasn't been solved.

I don't need a link. A brain works better.

I report MARattigan here for having a missing link

I'm wondering why you expect anyone to understand this. It's clearly nonsense since it seems to be linked to a game where the winning side was deliberately playing for a draw under the 50 move rule or whatever.

Here's a position that wouldn't be solved in the 32 man tablebase you refer to in the previous post if castling rights were excluded.

And here's one that won't be solved in the 8 man tablebases under construction.

But whether you regard those as reasonable positions is known only to yourself.

The point is what you think is a reasonable game has sweet FA to do with the definition of "solved", whether ultra-weakly, weakly or strongly.

Why do you keep quoting the definitions and pontificating over them when in practice you just totally ignore them?

A brain does. B brain might. Sounds like yours is D at best and obviously brains can't work out whether 7 men tablebases have been created, which seems to be another negative review for your brain.

That sounds worse than being one.

Took a while to think of that, considerin'.

I can imagine it did take you a while since you probably live on this thread as opposed to those of us living elsewhere. Up to a few days ago I was wondering why you weren't posting and whether you had dementia. I was genuinely wondering that. Not making it up. I'm glad you're ok.

I wasn't expecting you to understand it @Optimissed, just everybody else except @tygxc.

I didn't try hard to understand it because I assumed there was nothing to understand. I assumed that, because I don't have a high opinion of your efforts here and I assume you're trying deliberately to confuse people. That's me being charitable to you. Generally, most of your comments seem pointless and designed to con people into thinking they may have a point to them. I don't think there's any other reasonable or rational way to interpret your efforts.

I think that certain other people tolerate you and see you as a positive because they know that in return for that, you will support their rather miserable efforts to convince people that they themselves know what they're talking about.

All I know is that if you were knowledgeable and intelligent then it would show.