Chess will never be solved, here's why

(elroch) still does not understand basic math.

no. he does ty. prone to error yes. but he kinda gets it...mosta the time.

theres over 10 to the 123rd power of chess moves if y'all are looking at the simplicity of it (prove it simpleton), every move can and will be technically a draw based game (quit blabbing about it & prove it)

isnt it pleasant now that dodo bird left the island ?

Regarding a discussion above, to avoid confusion about positions, it's worth recalling the general definition of a state in a game - a set of information that determines all legal continuations and results (the last two words can be omitted with chess, since the result is only determined by the final position. Some other games have results which are affected by what has happened during the game).

State is a better notion than "position" because it is what is needed for reasoning. It's convenient to consider two states to be equal if they have the same legal continuations and results (mathematicians may view this as moving to equivalence classes of states). Trivial examples are dead drawn positions only differing in the half move clocks.

As you know, I encourage focussing on basic chess and chess with an N-move drawing rule, in both of which a FEN position suffices.

A FEN doesn't suffice to define the state as you've specified it.

Also I don't understand your example. If I understood right, a dead drawn position isn't a dead position, but rather one where there's no realistic way for either side to win, e.g most KNNK positions.

In that case if the half move clocks are different so also are the legal continuations.

Do you classify all mates as the same state and all stalemates as the the same state or do you count the final diagram or other attributes of the position as a result?

It amazes me - absolutely amazes me - that you people are still arguing about the same thing after this long.

Firstly let me point out it is extremely obvious that @Elroch is correct in all this analysis of chess tablebases and so fourth. It took me reading one single post where he corrected a few of my misconceptions to figure that out. How @tygxc can argue about this and be wrong for so long... so many posts and pages and pages. Just wow, amazing. But he does this often on many topics.

On the other hand... @Elroch it is not worth the time invested in explaining this to people. You also have a life to live.

Stop this madness. You all have a life to live. Seriously now.

Do you ever leave the island? That's the more germane question when it comes to your post(s).

Such suggestions coming from a person such as ibrust is ironic.
He should follow his own advice.
Like chess itself discussion of chess is an activity of leisure and privilege.
And fortunately persons such as ibrust trying to get people to shut up - have no authority here.
Its predictable that ibrust will make no contribution to the topic and simply troll - much as Optimissed does and the people who shill for Optimissed.
They all need to 'get a life'.
And - Optimissed muted - so ibrust shows up again - in O's absence.

@Elroch good point about the transpositions.
Which are minor in number compared to the daunting number of possible chess games.
And cannot make any kind of significant dent in the number of possible chess games.
Nor in the number of possible chess positions.
We can count on it that tygxc - whenever he spots a relatively small ratio of 'dismissable' positions - will always try to ridiculously exaggerate the number and ratio of such positions.
And I just saw this about tygxc: "But he does this often on many topics."
That's the first I've seen that said about tygxc.
Is that true or is that a smear on tygxc?
tygxc is like a Saint compared to the climate science deniers and vaxx deniers and other disinformation people on the website.
And that's putting it mildly.

tygxc claiming others dont understand basic math when literal mathematicians are against him is an absolutely pathetic thing to witness.

Do you ever leave the island? That's the more germane question when it comes to your post(s).

ohh darn...hes back. yuck.

tygxc is also beating around the bush of the fact that he assumes perfect pruning but only attirbutes one node per position.

tygxc knows he can get away with almost anything by simply stopping it for a while and then re-asserting it again later.
He claims others 'don't understand' but knows he's being phony on that.
So far he still doesn't go to Optimissed's pathetic narcissism tactics but almost nobody does.
MEGA - notice that tygxc suddenly almost dramatically stopped pushing the 114 games for now after it was suggested that the games are 'suspect' including the possibility that the engines were phonily set to not play for the win properly and instead play for the draw?
He seemed to drop it like it was a Hot Stone.

no hes still randomly claiming they're perfect when its convenient for him, and he'l make the same fallacies in trying to justify that claim in due time.

do you have a math degree?

OK. randomly. But much less than before.
I agree on the 'convenient'. Tactically convenient.
And correct about 'same fallacies'.
When not selling the Snake Oil - pushes the Moon Rocks.
But he's operating in a much more obscure area than ExWA is.
Like a choirboy compared to EW and EE.

@12004

"the average number of promotions to pieces not previously captured in a legal chess position is 9" ++ It is the modal number.

"Tromp points out that there are ~10^41 positions with 2 or fewer promotions t pieces not previously captured. (0.05% of 4.6x10^44)" ++ And most of these are underpromotions.

"a pair of strategies to weak solve chess contain massively fewer positions, just like the pair of strategies to weak solve checkers only contained ~10^14 positions." ++ Yes. For chess it is 10^17. Chess engines are more efficient than Chinook was and thus can come closer to perfect alpha-beta pruning. Chess is also easier to prune than Checkers.

"guessing it suffices, rather than PROVING it" ++ No need to prove an estimate.
The estimate 3*10^37 * 10.9456 = 3.28 * 10^38 is sufficiently accurate.

"Tromp showed there were 10^41 positions with 2 or fewer promotions to pieces not previously captured" ++ Including underpromotions. The 3.28 *10^38 includes 1-2 promotions to queens not previously captured.

tygxc's ability to understand rigour in math appears to be in rigor mortis.
And yes 'any dent'.
You worded it better than I.

except for the paper where that figure comes from EXPLICITLY STATES NO PROMOTIONS OF ANY TYPE.

you either do not even READ the papers you cite or you are Lying through your teeth.

this fact has been pointed out to your repeatedly, [Removed: Offensive] ~W

since you masquerade as neither, you disgust me.