Chess will never be solved, here's why

EK hi !
You might resent this but the robo-censor here is known to nail people for six consecutive posts.
Five? I don't know.
And you fixed the hieroglyphics of 11-point micro text!
Congratulations Good Sir !
------------------------------------
Regarding tygxc I don't think english is his first language.
Sometimes - tygxc 'loses his serenity' and makes a kind of outburst "they can't understand. They don't like the idea of 'solved'. They troll.'
But by and large he maintains himself.
tygxc is 1000 times the man Optimissed is.
But almost everybody is.
---------------------------------
Better to compare tygxc and Washi.
'Washi' is @ExploringWA. Denies climate science.
Possible reaction: 'Never never never compare people!'
Reply in advance: People often react vehemently when somebody does something they would not do.
Or says something they would not.
Or thinks something they wouldn't.
Or ventures into areas they'd avoid. Figuratively and literally.
Most people don't fall into that kind of 'beartrap of conceit' of 'needing imitation'.

Something a bit tacky about attacking people in threads where they can't respond. (Even people who do it themselves.)

Yes he can't respond.
But that's his fault. He did it to himself.
Point:
tygxc is constantly attacked or criticized.
Should he be?
In a personal way?
We make fun of him too.
Martin?
Is the fact that 'he can respond' make 'big red telephone' okay?

Except it obviously doesn't. Apart from that - brilliant!

'Never never compare people'
Because its 'tacky'?
Could have a million rules.
With Optimissed (who compares ad nauseum) not here -
tygxc is catching a lot of heat.
Should he be?
Many would say "Yes because he's spreading disinformation'
I'll add ...
attack tygxc too personally and that's Advantage tygxc.

EK yes - humanity is systematically destroying the climate.
But its not a completely hopeless situation.
For example the world's richest man got that way by marketing EV cars.
Unfortunately he's a bad man though.

Competition rule 9.2.3 clearly does not define position. It begins, "Positions are considered the same ...". You can't define "position" in terms of "positions".

Competition rule 9.2.3 states the conditions under which positions are to be considered the same for the purposes of the triple/quintuple repetition rules 9.2 and 9.6.1.

The term position is already used in the Basic Rules section of the laws which is intended to be self contained and 9.2.3 occurs as a third level subsection of article 9 in the Competition Rules section, so you'd have to be pretty dim to think it was intended by FIDE to be a definition of the term "position".

The FIDE laws nowhere define "position" so the normal English meaning must be assumed. I would take that to be what I called "natural position" in the post I think you're responding to. That is, a point reached in a game.

With that meaning these arts. make sense:

5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

With what you claim to be FIDE's meaning of "position", namely just those attributes of a natural position that are specified in 9.2.3 to determine when different natural positions are to be considered equal for the purposes of 9.2/9.6 they make no sense, because under competition rules those attributes are insufficient to determine whether the conditions specified are true or not.

But "meaning of position" is not restricted to FIDE's interpretation. People use the term in many different ways, which is OK so long as it's clear what is meant (if it needs to be).

You use at least two meanings. Here you say.

Position = diagram + side to move, castling rights, en passant flag = FEN witout move #

which gives two definitions (that are clearly not equal despite the "=") which is not ok, because you use them interchangeably without distinguishing to deliberately obfuscate what you're saying.

Neither contains sufficient attributes to make sense in the FIDE articles I reproduced above. I already posted two different natural positions for you with identical FENs in one of which neither player could checkmate the other while in the other one side could.

Neither represents game states under FIDE competition rules or ICCF rules, or the nodes traversed by Stockfish quoted in nodes/sec figures (SF is designed to take both the 50 move and triple repetition rules into account).

I've already posted this stuff about half a dozen times in the last twenty pages or so without any sensible response from you. No doubt when you think enough pages have gone by you'll want me to do it again. 

I just read through Martin's post.
Including about information included with diagrams.
and rule-situations regarding draws.
Referring to no sequence of moves existing to force checkmate.
----------------------------
But I'm mentioning something related to that.
In some positions when there's an appeal to a tournament director to adjudicate the game as draw (or even as win) there's a rule whereby the director can refer to something like this:
------------------------------
'in the opinion of the director if the position is such that a master could swindle a C player to change the nature of the situation in the master's favor - then the director should refuse the adjudication and allow the game to continue'
it doesn't say anything about the clocks in the rule I believe but that's obviously a big factor because weaker players often get swindled because they're using too much time or too little or not making good enough use of their clock time.
----------------------------
I've seen it happen in live tournaments.
The director is asked to adjudicate the position.
With the 'swindle rule' in place as a possible factor.
But supposedly the director is supposed to ignore the clocks and the factor of time too.
But how could he ignore either?

Agreed, but to be fair, it's not at all clear at this point whether the continued absence is voluntary or involuntary.

But yes, why risk saying Beetlejuice 3 times?

tygxc is a good foil here. Needed or not.
But the other guy - I'm going to try it this way:
often what happens - the worse somebody is - the more defense they get.
Often happens.
The message appears to be 'There's nothing you can do about it'.
Especially from that person.
The concept that tygxc should catch all the blame that the O-person entirely deserves - can be resisted. The O-person is Optimissed.
------------------------------------
And the aberration of the more offenses a person commits the more defense he gets and that the subject of the worst person in the forums should be taboo in his absence and that he should be 'protected' ...
no apology from me.
Should a forum be a popularity contest?
It happens. Doesn't mean its right.

Thank you KGS !
Does everybody like a winner?
Sometimes.

Unlucky!

100% involuntary. he got muted by my report lol.

but i do agree that its not fair to put down people that cannot talk back.

He can talk back.
Just not on his terms.
He has to wait.
Again - his fault.
Chess.com punished him. They also stopped him.
Not our fault. No 'shield' around him because he got himself stopped.
People are dying. There's a war going on in Europe.
The worst person in the forums for ten years has no halo or aura.
Never will.

Does chess have 'luck'?
Definitely it does. Players have no '100% determinism' over their opponent's play and variations in the level of that play. Which influences the player's results.
Luck always there. (even if it 'hides')
Does that pertain to the forum topic?
I say it does.

@12511

"Chess is impossible to solve" ++ No. Weakly solving is feasible.

"First of all most chess positions have an unprocessable amount of moves possible"
++ 10^44 legal positions, of which 10^38 possible with 1 box of 38 chess men including a white and black spare queen, of which 10^17 relevant to weakly solving chess.

"all as soon as you get to a certain level of skill you literally cannot get better because you always know what the best move is"
++ That is what we now see in the ICCF World Championship Finals.

"No matter what after that certain skill level is reached no one can beat you even if someone else reaches the same level of skill because then games will continue until someone wins because of time." ++ All draws: 116 perfect games

"Most of the time games will reach a tie because of equal skill level" ++ Yes.

@12498

How could you repeat a position 3 times with your alternative definitions?
If the 3 positions were different, then you cannot have a repetition.