Chess will never be solved, here's why

No it doesn't. You're spreading false conclusions tygxc.

tygxc doesn't seem to grasp issues about objectivity - while maybe maintaining to himeself that He 'is the objective one'.
Its a kind of reverse projection.
Interesting.
In most of the projection we see in the public forums here -
the projecting person accuses others of negative behaviour that the projecting person does.
But with tygxc - he tries to assign the qualities of objectivity of others posting here - to himself.
For him to do that - he would be taking other false steps too.
---------------------------------
This would mean he is also confusing his dogma with objectivity.
Dogma - his one-sidedness in considering chess-solving issues.
Which causes his failed positions regarding 'nodes per second' and 'taking the square root' in contexts where such terms and methods aren't valid.
But with the 116 draws (or is it 114 - how about that's not critical) his mistakes aren't quite as obvious.
------------------------------
His invalid applications of nodes per second and square root to contexts where they don't belong - corresponds to Flat Earthism.
But with the 116 draws its just not quite as obvious he's wrong so that would correspond more to climate science denial.
Such deniers can't 'see' the extra CO2 in the atmosphere which further helps them to spread disinformation.
tygxc will just keep pointing at the 116 draws number and say 'See?' which enables him to 'push through obfuscation'.
What would be a good analogy ...
A salesman points at the moon and says 'See?' and starts talking about the moon's color and then points at his Moon Rocks on the table next to him.
Same Color. 'See?'. 'Real Moon Rocks at a low low price! But wait - if you order now ...'

Really, no it doesn't.

Syzygy has many solutions to the position below. But it doesn't know how many exact moves to win.

This is (part of) one of its solutions.

And this is (part of) another.

It doesn't have anything faster than the second. But the position is obviously mate in 2.

MN - your post is good up to 'from any possible position'.
That's good including that phrase.
But the point is that the 'engine pondering' is needed in practical terms.
There's too many positions for humans to solve chess.
So computers are needed to get to that point.
-------------------
But to really make progress and avoid the circularity in tygxc's posts -
others would have the actual debate and discussion around him.
because tygxc is not using nearly enough objectivity to properly debate the issues. He just 'goes in his circles'.
What could kill such discussion around tygxc would be certain vague terminologies.
'game theoretic value' ... not going anywhere. Just not generic enough.
That's just 'advantage tygxc' again.
------------------------
To counter tygxc's nonsense you
1) Use terms that are ultra-generic.
Even if it means longer phrases and more words.
2) Post to each other.
3) Dissect tygxc's illogic in front of him. Not to him.
4) Discuss the real logic. He'll keep trying to 'jump in' but if its done right he'll just 'jump-circle'.
tygxc is playing a knight down all the time.
------------------------
But what does the win look like for the opponent?
New arrivals here:
'Oh I see. I get it now why tygxc is wrong on all three of his fronts including the 116 draw one.'
But then we get:
'But why does he keep pushing his invalid stuff?
What's going on??'
Answer is simple.
Because he can.
You don't see climate science deniers and vaxx deniers giving up do you?
They're not going to give up and neither will he.
Issues:
How to talk to or around disinformationers.
How to discuss the actual subject.
-----------------
Politicians and lawyers usually know.
Scientists and mathematicians? Not so good at that.
Doctors? They know the science. 
But a lot of them know how to talk to patients too.

Bro, this thread is a scientific test on Dead Internet Theory, this thread is an experiment on computerized bot's abilities to keep a thread going on indefinitely. This problem has been fricking solved for damn near a hundred years and you guys keep talking about this god damned thing over and over and over and over again. It is a computability problem, based in problem sets and literally dealing with things like P vs NP. Unless you are a mathematician, computer scientist, literally anything besides a Chess player you are just basing things off opinion and not actual fact. It doesn't take much googling to get the answer to this threads question. If you do not understand the answer you get from Google and want to argue it, then you probably don't actually understand the solution you read, you're literally making an argument against the people who MADE computers.

My email has suffered for so long

Invalid premise.
It has not been solved.
And what's this got to do with email?

I'm guessing that's due to the current technological (storage) limitations?

Take away two pawns and Syzygy appears to declare DTM just fine, for all possible moves.

Nalimov shows DTM for 5-man endings, too ... but from what I've read, Nalimov is now considered antiquated ...

I'm speaking about the hypothetical 32-man tablebase that's already been mentioned countless times on this thread, I'm sure ... where such technological/storage limitations have all been conquered ... so "DTM" or "draw" would be listed for all possible positions.

The DTM comes from DTM tables not Syzygy. It used to show the same DTM with all the pawns before the Lomonosov DTM tables were sabotaged. Up to five man tables are still available (also most six but the site doesn't seem to access them).

The Syzygy solution is the DTZs.

The DTM tablebases are not guaranteed to work with the 50 move rule in force (but they would in that position, obviously, if they were still around).

The point is Syzygy is a solution (actually guaranteed to work whether or not the 50 move rule/triple repetition rules are in effect for positions with no previous 9.2 repeats) but it doesn't tell you how many moves to mate. DTM tables (e.g. Nalimov) are a different solution and they do tell you the number of moves to mate under basic rules (no 50 move/triple repetition rules in force). The number of moves to mate can be different in the basic rules and competition rules games and the mates can disappear in the latter.

DTM50 tablebases would tell you the distance to mate under competition rules for positions with no repeats under the triple repetition rule (started I believe, but not yet available). But the fact remains that a solution doesn't need to give an answer to the question, "How many moves to mate?".

Indeed, if chess is a draw, a weak solution doesn't need to tell you even how to mate from any positions at all.

If you are so hip to the technology involved, why haven't you figured out how to uncheck the "Follow" box and eliminate notifications for this thread...?

If your Email is suffering, that's all on you.

LMFAOO

have you even read the article you cited?

it explicitly contradicts almost every single one of your claims.

as sveshnikov said, "give me a dyson sphere, a planetary super computer, and good assistants and I will solve chess in 5 years"

for example, tygxc claims that chess is ultra weakly solved, and cites van de herik. Van de herik explicitly states that chess is not solved in any way.

the threefold repetition rule shouldn't make things that much tougher.
But the 50 move rule could.
it implies that on each and every position considered - its possible that a move that isn't a pawn move or a capture could instantly draw a game.
Because there could have been 49 ... that's right.
That by itself isn't tough though.
The computer can automatically have a message ('except in other positions where some moves would draw because of The 50.')
But note that such variants would actually be easier to solve since there would be fewer non-draw variants within the position. The position was already solved but the addition doesn't have to be because its an instant draw.
But then there's the issue of 'agreement' versus 'tournament arbitration'.
Both players might decline to claim a draw after the 50 - but the tournament director could arbitrate one anyway.
Such factors make it tougher for the computer to itemize ...
Then there's if its 48 moves ... and so on.
-----------------------
Conclusion: As the tablebases develop they should initially skip three-fold and 50 move considerations -
but include en passant and castling possibilities because those would be much easier to add by arbitration and don't involve 'agreeements and tournament directors'.
Even en passant and castling would not increase the number of positions to be considered - by anywhere near a factor of two.
------------------
The big kid on the block is adding a piece or pawn to the tablebase.
Every time that is done it multiplies the number of positions possible by far over a hundred.
If its a piece or pawn that isn't already on the board - then its multiplying by about 500.
That's why with today's technology it would take trillions of years to work up to a completed 32 piece tablebase.

I like that post.

Do any of you have any theoretical knowledge about anything? Go ask the Google Team at DeepMind, ask the people that made Stockfish. You and ME are not smarter than them, we are not smarter than Cluade Shannon the person who invented Game Theory and 1/2 of computer science as we know it. All of these people have basically the same answer to your question.

The winner for Chess on a 8x8 grid is unsolved for white or black. End of story. Sure the engine today might say +0.27 for white, but for all we know for either White or Black there could be a string of moves from the start that will always lead to a win. Think endgame tablebases, ANY computer knows EVERY GAME with 7 pieces or less, as a result, every position with 7 pieces or less is solved. Its not the computer is playing these positions perfectly, it does not know what perfect is, IT JUST KNOWS WHAT GAME TO FOLLOW TO WIN.

This is what you need a computer to do from the start of the game in order to solve chess. Doesn't matter if you work backwards or forwards, doesn't matter if you use Red-Black trees to cut your pruning time, the amount of data needed to construct this leads to there being more games than even a 1:1 game-byte mapping for ALL THE MEMORY IN THE UNIVERSE. Can quantum computers help? . . . . maybe. Either way if you think you could just slap this into a quantum computer and it will be "solved" you have a fundamental misunderstanding on how quantum computers work. The amount of data needed to solve chess even with a quantum computer is still in the YOTTABYTES.

I don't care about any of your guys weakly or strongly solved of anything, you guys have completely neglected Game Theory so you shouldn't even be using those terms. Every source anywhere with any actual knowledge will tell you this is a Storage Space and computation problem, not a chess problem. If we had the ability to store hundreds Yottabytes and compute incomprehensible number of parse trees then it will be solved. Until then, it isn't, end of story.

This thread should have been dead so long ago

you misunderstand. tygxc is the one making the fallacies you point out, we are pointing those out for him, just as you have. do not mistake our fallacies for tygxc's. plus, we dont need to be researchers to understand the fallacies that tygxc makes. tygxc legitimately thinks that 99% probability is a mathematical proof of certainty.

for example, i was pointing out how tygxc cites some guy to make completely false claims about basic game theory. I know a decent amount of game theory, so I know that hes wrong. but, tygxc doesnt listen to anybody on the forum who points out what game theory actually is. so i cited the guy that tygxc cited.

@12340

"Do any of you have any theoretical knowledge about anything?" ++ Many here do not.

"The winner for Chess on a 8x8 grid is unsolved for white or black" ++ Chess is a draw.

"there could be a string of moves from the start that will always lead to a win"
++ No. here are 116 strings of perfect moves from the start that lead to draws.

"This is what you need a computer to do from the start of the game in order to solve chess."
There are 3 kinds of solved: strongly (like Connect Four), weakly (like Checkers), ultra-weakly (like Hex).

"Doesn't matter if you work backwards or forwards" ++ Strongly solving like the 7-men endgame table base is done backwards, weakly solving like done for Checkers is forwards.

"the amount of data needed to construct this leads to there being more games than even a 1:1 game-byte mapping for ALL THE MEMORY IN THE UNIVERSE"
++ Number of games does not matter. Number of positions: 10^44 legal, 10^38 from 1 box of 34 chess men, of which 10^17 relevant to weakly solving chess.

"Can quantum computers help?" ++ Quantum computers can strongly solve chess by 2100, backwards from 7-men endgame table base to 8 men, 9 men, 10 men... 32 men.

"The amount of data needed to solve chess even with a quantum computer is still in the YOTTABYTES." ++ A strong solution would need 10^44 bit: draw/nodraw.
Synthetic DNA might be used as storage medium.

"This thread should have been dead so long ago"
++ The now ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals now for the first time produces no single decisive game. That shows chess is a draw and it shows how to draw. So this is at least part of a weak solution of chess.

quavotoldmegetit pursuing a classic situation that happens sometimes.
Which is to 'argue' with people who he basically agrees with.
Lol!
QV doesn't get it or not yet that its tygxc with the fallacies.
As for tygxc I rarely read his double cross sign spam.
He basically blew himself out of the water as soon as he started using 'nodes' per second' terminology to push disinformation.
And that was years ago he started those tactics.
--------------------
regarding terms like 'game theory' - while the science of that is apparently both useful and 'key' ... invoking the term itself is like using terms like 'game theoretic value' and 'nodes' and 'weakly solved'.
Just plays right into tygxc's terms.
Since he depends heavily on semantic footholds - when people use those terms they're putting themselves in his office.
------------------------------
No matter how valid and applicable those terms are - its best to put everything in generic terms - even if the generic definition of the term has to be used every single time to avoid the term itself.
The trick is to do that without being too repetitive.
If you're explaining something to somebody about computers - you don't want to be using terms like 'API' or 'script'. You don't want to be posting links to StackOverflow website.
Big business knows this by the way.
When they talk to the public they know to avoid techno-jargon.
The idea is to get the points across.

Unfortunately, you have achieved a fail again. Hint: repetition is NOT a way of fixing that.

I see nothing significant wrong with what @quavoquavotoldmegetit said. He is in agreement with us and the academic community.