@11534
"the sheer number of possible positions" ++ There are 10^44 legal chess positions,
of which 10^37 without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
Of these 10^17 are relevant to weakly solving chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
"calculate every potential outcome" ++ It is not necessary to calculate everything:
weakly solving chess only needs 1 black reply to all reasonable white moves.
I think that if you would pause and think for yourself for a moment, you would realise that in order to find that one black reply to each move by white, it is necessary to investigate very thoroughly quite a large number of black replies to every white move. I mentioned five candidate moves earlier (a couple of weeks since) but I also mentioned that to do the job properly, maybe nine candidate moves would suffice. That would be your "weak solution".
Here the quotation marks are appropriate, since the term is being used incorrectly by @tygxc, based it seems on his lack of understanding of the nature of the solution of checkers.
A weak solution strategy for white requires a response to EVERY legal move by black. None may be ignored, even if Steinitz didn't like them. That's the DEFINITION of a weak solution.
Then it's incorrect. However, my recollection tells me, from when I was studying these things, that the ridiculous terminology is defined as requiring a "strategy" (their word) for every legal move. That "strategy" could simply be "try harder not to lose this time, dear". Seems like we would need a definition for "strategy". While we're at it, can we please have a definition for "definition"? I feel that without it, we aren't going to make much progress. A definition for every word of that definition of definition might also come in handy.
OR we might simply try (hard for some) to stop speaking in gobbledegook because it looks as if someone's got something to hide and I know beyond doubt that there's been slippage in meaning regarding "weak" over the past 5 years. You accuse tygxc of changing tack and reversion but he isn't the only one, is he?
Ooh we ARE getting noisy! Telling other people what they can do and can't do, while you yourself claim to be able to post what you want when and where you want. You've also made a very convincing argument that you're not completely crazy, somewhere, haven't you? Would you remind me of it?
This type of self-escalated posturing and preening does not make you look like you are actually holding your own, you know. It's vaguely obsequious (towards your intended and largely imaginary audience) and just paints you as insecure.
TL;DR
You're trying too hard.