Chess will never be solved, here's why

ah yes tygxc, ignore the 4 people repeatedly pointing out your previous delusions in explicit detail and instead repeat your fantasy to new users to try to mislead them. How can you look yourself in the mirror?

there isnt even anything political about this topic, there is literally no reason for you to be struggling to accept basic logic. There is literally nobody who falls for your delusions for more than a couple interactions.

@12048

"Tromp counts basic rules positions not competition rules positions."
++ There are only positions, and competition rule 9.2.3 defines it.
You confuse positions and nodes. The node is a position + history + provisional heuristic evaluation. The history takes care of the 3-fold repetition rule and the 50-moves rule.

"factor of two to account for side to move is too high, but I would suggest by very little"
++ Yes, likewise the factor 1/2 for positions to nodes is a bit off too.
Generally 1 diagram = 2 positions = 1 node

"3.8521...e37 x 10.9456 = 4.2163...e38."
++ 3.8521E37 is an upper bound, the estimate is 3E37, see page 9

"What factor of 1/2 for diagrams to nodes?"

Here are 2 diagrams, 4 positions, 2 nodes.

"planning to use SF"
++ No. ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers each 90 million positions/s during 5 days/move.

"I don't think SF exploits that symmetry in any way" ++ No, but the up/down symmetrical position does not happen. If it were to occur, the human would recognise it.

"SF is designed to play competition rules chess." ++ ICCF (grand)masters use it for analysis.

"That is a diagram and a limited amount of history"
++ And a provisional heuristic evaluation, together a node.
The engine recognises the 3-fold repetition of a FEN or the 50-moves rule from the PGN.

"you seem to have omitted the case of two queens of the same colour"
++ Yes, 3 queens vs. 1 queen makes no sense.
That is why the /2 is there in addition to the /4 to select Q only and omit R, B, N.

"Where's the output?" ++ The core output are the 114 ICCF WC Finals draws.
The more extensive output are the records both ICCF (grand)masters kept.
'I maintain both manual and electronic records. When the move is received, I note the exact time, my candidate moves, records of all actions taken, and their results.' - Edwards

"If someone wants to know what moves to play"
++ Follow an ICCF WC Finals draw for as long as possible,
then switch to ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 positions/s, average 5 days/ply

"if as Black I play 1...e5 against 1.e4 and my opponent plays 2.Ba6 and I want to know what move to play, your solution tells me, Play ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 positions/s, 5 days/ply"
++ Yes, though for 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, lesser hardware and less time/move will suffice.

"different rules" ++ ICCF is more decisive than FIDE,
so a weak solution of chess per ICCF is a fortiori a weak solution per FIDE.

To be fair, @tygxc has provided a great deal of weak reasoning. In fact I would call it ultra-weak reasoning.

but he sure hijacked u guys...ur all jumping thru hoops cuzza him...LOLOL !!

Masterful.

no

It looks like Elroch might have got accidentally robo-muted somehow.
So his posts and his two science forums have disappeared temporarily.
Hopefully he'll be back very shortly in which case his posts and forums will re-appear.

no

@Elroch
Glad to see you're back. And quickly.

but.. why?

There are like 9999999...9999999 (120 9's) possible chess positions. This isn't even considering multiple ways to reach the exact same position! Fun fact: If you had a hallway having every possible chess game, that hallway would reach the "unobservable universe". Meanwhile people from the year 45360: How is chess still not solved?!?! That game is like 50000 years old!

Not quite right.
Your numbers more pertain to possible games than positions.
The actual number of possible chess positions is somewhere between 10^44 and 10^45 positions.
But that's still far more than enough to make solving chess impossible for today's computers.
Unless they had many trillions of years available.
But they will be replaced soon by newer computers which would still take too many trillions of years.
------------------------
Too bad that today's computers also can't do much about the continuing and increasing damage to the earth's atmosphere and weather by ongoing manmade global warming.
What Can today's computers do that is super-great?
They probably figure in things like MRI machines.
Various other medical applications.
Printers.
Aircraft design and operation. Navigation generally.
Greatly increased precision and quality in manufacturing.
Robotic automation increasing production in factories and thereby greatly improving the work duties and health of factory workers and other workers.
Got to be quite a longer list ...

Hi all!

This is such a complex discussion! Honestly I wouldn't be able to get a grasp on all the super strong arguments here from both sides. It is all very complex, at the same time I'm glad we're able to have such debates, it's what makes us ponder and evolve together.

Would like to propose that we have arguments posted without resorting to offensive remarks and personal attacks, there's really no need to resort to these. Totally understand that sometimes we get heated topics, but please let's refrain from being negative towards one another, and have a polite discussion from both sides which is what enrichens all our discussions so much.

Wishing an amazing weekend and week ahead to everyone here, and thank you so much for being amazing in sharing your thoughts in this thread that is one of the great survivors from long time in our forums.

Have a great one!

Why is this so downvoted?

@12073

"Why is this so downvoted?"
++ Many people dislike the prospect of chess being solved.

objectively wrong lol, did you even read it?

why dont you ACTUALLY address what myself and others have pointed out to you about your fallacies, this time you need to do so without taking more than half of their statements out of context.

@12070

"There are like 9999999...9999999 (120 9's) possible chess positions."
++ No. There are (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44 legal chess positions,
most with around 9 promotions to pieces not previously captured.
There are no more than 3.8521 * 10^37 legal chess positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
There are about 3*10^37 * 10.9456 = 3.28 * 10^38 positions without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured.
Of these 1.8 * 10^17 are relevant to weakly solving Chess.

That’s interesting

Wrong. Invalid.
For one there's no reason to exclude any underpromotions.
But even more invalid is taking the square root.
There's over 10^44 possible chess positions.
That's that.
There's no valid shortcuts from there.
That's the number.
And computers cannot tablebase solve positions yet even with just 8 pieces on board.
As for 'weakly solve' - whatever the definition of that is - an invalid cutdown and 'cheating' by trying to water down the number severely by taking its square root would render such 'weakly solving' worthless ...
You may as well claim that Capablanca and Tal already solved chess ...
arguably the greatest talents of the game but no cigar as far as solving is concerned even though Capa was from a country famous for cigars.
---------------------
Now that friendly moderator Wind just issued a nice reminder about politeness so I'm going to try to not be too critical of tygxc and his claims about taking a square root which he chose to leave out of his wording just now.
But there's no valid cutdown to 10^17 so that claim is false.
So that's taken care of for now.
The correct number of positions to be solved is far over 10^44.
In other words a 45 digit number.
You don't get to reduce it to less than a trillionth of a trillionth of its value arbitrarily and have credibility.
I anticipate that tygxc will try to contradict but the mistakes in such shortcuts have been pointed out and will likely be continued to be efficiently pointed out as the unfounded claims continue.