@11961
"every position reached generates around 35 positions"
++ No, this has been disproved.
There may be 35 legal moves in a position, but average only 3 that do not transpose.
...
You decide that "position" means those attributes of the situation in a basic rules game that determine the theoretical outcome. The same attributes don't determine the theoretical outcome under competition rules. So your "positions" are irrelevant if you're talking about transpositions under competition rules. Transpose them into A, E♭ and F if you like, but the competition rules game tree nodes won't follow suit.
This is a red herring, as a weak solution of basic chess with an added n-move rule automatically provides a weak solution of chess with an additional repeated position rule (the one that greatly increases the state space). This is true whether chess is a win or a draw.
You know this already, so why ignore it again?
@tygxc's positions don't transpose mainly because of the added n-move rule. I didn't mention the triple repetition rule.
The fact is that when @tygxc asserts that his "positions" transpose, they don't. We might as well be accurate.
It also seems to me that you're also ignoring the fact that the triple move rule can be ignored in solving only with a procedure correctly designed to do that. Apart from the fact that @tygxc's procedure isn't actually designed to solve chess anyway it doesn't appear to me to conform with that. He's happy to accept a draw by SF under the triple move rule as proving a draw even when the initial occurrence was actually a win.
Yes, it's true that in principle, some hypothetical other way to solve chess might be different. @tygxc has described no such way. In fact, I don't believe a single alternative to a weak solution (apart from a strong solution) has been specified in this discussion by anyone.
yeah Ive even pointed this out to him before and he just ignores it. at this point i cherry pick my arguments against tygxc to only that i think he has a chance of properly comprehending.