Chess will never be solved, here's why

Ty does understand it better than you, in fact. The weakness is the bad maths and lack of logic in working out how a position should actually be analysed. You and I are probably closer on that. Unfortunately, you are he are extremely similar in character, which explains your interminable arguing to no effect, because you are both equally blinded by the poor definitions.

You are a stone deaf music critic. Amusing but not informative.

The words make sense. The question is whether your attempts are any more relevant than those of RATMAR or ty. All three of you are myopic and tunnel-visioned, each from your own perspectives. With you in charge, chess would stand no more chance of being solved than with either of the other two, except that ty's eminently more practical approach is the closest we can currently get to some kind of working solution.

I think tygxc is inaccurate by a factor of Far over a million.
He's off by much much more than that ...
Have you seen his argument about taking the square root?
When you take the square root of a very large number - the kinds of numbers we're talking about here ... taking the square root invalidly reduces the number to under a million trillionth of its previous value.
For example if you take the square root of a 40 digit number you'll have a number with approximately twenty digits.
To the untrained eye half the length might look like much less of a reduction than it actually is.
If you had a large forest with a million trees its like what's left is a single leaf ...
this is analagous to the kind of reduction tygxc wants to push.
Point: the larger the number that is being square rooted - the more exponentially the number is being reduced.
Square root of 9 is 3 - a third of 9.
Square root of one million is one thousand - which is only one tenth of one percent of one million.
See what you're doing when you take the square root of a 40 digit number?
tygxc likes these exotics.
Its kind of like - 'hey how about teleportation booths for world travel?'
But suggestion: don't get 'exasperated' with his square root idea because that means falling into the trap.
It would be like getting annoyed with the shape of his elbow or his shoe size.
----------------------------------------
Incidentally - GM Smirnov seems to push in his video that you should often be looking three moves deep, except of course when it obviously requires more like in an intensely tactical situation ...
In other words - operate well within yourself. One does better.

And weakly solving checkers only resulted in about a 2/3 power reduction of the full state space, rather than 1/2.

I have two question.

1) what is the difference of beliving something and knowing something?

2) how do you know there is is not one weird 200 ish move order that wins of black in any of the positions you disregart?

Elroch beautifully refuted O's ridiculous construct that if we had perfect setup information about a chess position (players do) then we should 'know the solution too'.
So O tried to do damage control by asserting that he sometimes introspects that he didn't understand what was being said.
Trying to pretend that he hadn't made a ridiculous construct.
Elroch had simply displayed a very long number and then said something like 'here we have perfect information as to a particularily large number. Does that mean we know its factors?'
O nearly always loses.

I like mrh's first question there.
But after white making a move losing a piece in the first few moves without nearly enough compensation - is it reasonable for the computer to stop there?
I don't like the term 'weakly solving'.
I would prefer the term 'performing approximated solving' its reasonable to stop in obvious situations.
----------------------------------------------------
Tal was known to make crazy-looking sacrifices - but the point is they worked!
Could strong players honestly claim that the immediately resulting position was 'obvious'? I would say no.
To be honest they'd have to say - 'its unclear' or 'I'd have to look at it further before pronouncing a 'solved' finding if any.'

@Elroch - maybe we're going to disagree on this.
But that's okay. Unlike O - I'm not fragile or delicate and you're not either.
I'm saying - better terminology should be used or coined.
I mentioned a candidate phrase for improvement.
A major probability that it won't be doesn't mean I'll get 'bent out shape'.
I'll keep objecting from time to time whether rightly or wrongly.
And now - going to post some Q-sacs from the 'magician from Riga' ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_bioh6lg9U5 Q-sacs of Tal's.
Just looked at the first one. Well annotated by NM Canty.

It's spelt with a "u".

tygxc doesnt know, he just assumes his conclusions and works from there.

You wote each player, but im guessing only one can have an optimal solution?

I think the real definition is that we have atlesst one strategy that alway lead to an result. A win for one of the olayers, or always a draw.

@MARattigan the point is the connotations of the word 'solved'.
'Weakly solved' is like saying - well the A-team won 'weakly'.
You don't think its relevant?
Fine. I'm saying much of the ten thousand posts so far revolve around the poor choice of terminology for alternatives to real solving.
'Weakly solving' is pseudo-solving plus people including yourself have been trying to tell tygxc that his arguments are worse than that and that essentially they're pseudo-solving.
The seed of tygxc's 'positions' has germinated in that favorable environment of 'weakly solved' ...
You could consider that the resulting nature of the 10,000 posts aren't about me ... they're about the 'genesis' of 'weakly solved'.
-------------------------------------------
Anyway - I'm going to post another Tal Q sac - this time with a different annotator.
Point: Relevancy to tygxc's 'dismissals' like taking the square root of the number of positions.
Point 2: Everybody seems to know that tygxc will 'resist' ... but So What?
Its not all just about him either.
Anyway here now another Tal Q sac.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jyO-rSeRV0That vid would never be shown on Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert ...
but this is a chess place ... and Tal's stellar play is to highlight dogma about material advantage.

O nearly always wins.

Apart from the fact that you are probably writing as we speak from a lunatic asylum, so I bet you get the last laugh there.

The fact that you or Elriot say you've won a carrot in a competition doesn't mean you won it. If you had anything about you at all, you'd be a bombastic fool.

No. The only strategy in chess is to play good moves until someone wins. There is no other meta-strategy.

Since a strong solution is completely impossible and couldn't be accessed due to storage and retrieval problems, all this means is that you live in the fantasy world of your asylum a bit too much.