Chess will never be solved, here's why

I don't think I'm conflating the two. What would you say are the rules of the game and do you think "game" should be singular.

easy example for checkers is your claim of the situation of both players resigning simultaneously. btw - simultaneously according to who? you assume that the events are evaluated to be at the same time.

you literally are. nothing that you brought up is about the state of the board. An easy demonstration of that is the fact that none of what you claimed has any effect on chess.com games.

I'm saying no more than that the rules of FIDE basic and competition rules chess are the rules in the FIDE handbook and similarly for ICCF and TCEC which refer to those rules. Very many people would agree with that, so if I'm conflating anything I'm in good company.

In chess.com, events in games are serialised by the computer, corresponding to the mathematical model I suggested as a possibility where simultaneous events are not allowed.

chess as an abstraction is the rules of the board, piece positions, and the defined outcome of each move on the board. stuff like the 50-move rule are variations.

I couldn't play much of a game from that set of rules. Is there a well recognised source for it?

Either the 50 move rule is a variation or vice versa (it was generally accepted as the norm prior to 2017).

Whatever, solutions with and without the rule already don't match for <= 7 man positions that have been solved.

Are you saying they will match for the starting position? If not, what point are you trying to make? If you have different solutions, does it matter if you call them different games or different variations?

By the way the rules of the board and the defined outcome of each move on the board are different in each of your variations and that is very relevant to the topic.

The defined outcome of Nd5 under basic rules is mate in 84.

The defined outcome of Nd5 under competition rules is draw.

The defined outcome of Ka1 under basic rules is loss in 3.

The defined outcome of Ka1 under competition rules is draw.

Actually - optimissed loses almost every time.
And he gets himself muted by his intense trolling.
Yes there will be those who want to blame others for O's trolling.
On this latest mute he'll probably again try to claim it was the robo-censor.
His previous mute a few days ago - lasted six days.
Robo mutes are 24 hours. (unless that's changed. Unlikely)
Possibility - he's deliberately got himself robo-muted this time around so he can claim he committed 'no real offenses? Very possible.
To him - his tactics and trolling are everything.
He's 'life-invested'.
Regarding his projections and projecting of his projecting ...
what's the key? Dishonesty.
O lied again and claimed he was the only one discussing the forum subject.
Others didn't. Didn't lie. (one exception)
Falsehood. A key ingredient of projection.

Going by FIDE rules, the game is already solved: bribe the officials to give you the win every game.

opti's a pleasant wait a sec. its not his fault he cant be taken. so what if hes a chalkboard handful. hes 250 watts a in ur face...and i luvem for it !

somebody fire me !

To be fair, as I understand it, the auto-mutes may automatically escalate the mute timeframe if someone does not have a long enough "cooldown" period since their last mute to reset the counter. So it's hard to tell.

To be fair, as I understand it, the auto-mutes may automatically escalate the mute timeframe if someone does not have a long enough "cooldown" period since their last mute to reset the counter. So it's hard to tell.

looking at some of the recent comments,

is it any wonder Optimissed wins all these debates so easily

looking at some of the recent comments,

is it any wonder Optimissed wins all these debates so easily

The role of the arbiter in the basic rules game is limited to deciding whether an assistant proposed for a player who is unable to move the pieces is acceptable to him. He has no power to award a win.

Even if he did, youl'd still have either failed to achieve the object of the game or wasted your money.

everything is possible even solving chess

Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.

Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.

Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?

No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.

the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.

nothing in the world can change that.

So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.

If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.

So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.

If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.