Chess will never be solved, here's why

For being straight to the point, chess has infinite possibilities for strategy so, you cant just replicate a game with every move that is the same because your opponent will reply differently depending on the elo and the tactics you’re using (if this is not helpful for you, then skip this answer)

POV: tygxc is going to try to convert this new comment instead of addressing the multiple refutations and credentials that are currently outstanding against him.

The first thing he needs to do is to clarify (ahem) his claim of "more of a grounding in the mathematical sciences than any here".

I always knew he had a secret narcissistic side.

He does generously admire himself.

@12512

"For comparison, I have a first in maths from Cambridge, and an MMath and a lot of experience of applications of mathematics (as well as physics and computational techniques."
++ So more than you, as I thought.

"I respect those who stuck it out longer than me" ++ Show respect then.

"a mathematical deduction and a statistical inference"
++ Mathematics is not only deductive. Tromp's method to establish (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44 legal positions is inductive. Monte Carlo methods are inductive.

As predicted, tygxc doesnt actually give any information besides "i know more", while his actual statements indicate a complete lack of knowledge.

im willing to bet money that he took some class that used math as a helping tool, but he hasnt actually engaged in any class that actually used mathematical proof.

tygxc the question is simple - you claim to have mathematics credentials. where are they?

Careful - He will ask for your math degree + doctorate in math

Lol

He boasted about his supposed superior qualifications in maths. The truth is that no-one who does research in maths doesn't know what a mathematical proof is - the idea is absurd!

Spammers get reported.

Nah, this is a troll. Now we find out youve wasted your time for 600 pages

tbf neither elroch nor I are really here to try to convince tygxc of anything. its a longstanding debate between my friends and I whether tygxc is trolling or just plain [redacted]. Im here mostly only to make sure that tygxc doesnt mislead people on basic game theory principles, and if i can humiliate a guy spreading misinformation and have nice conversations with like minded individuals, then that's a bonus.

I'm not referring to any sort of solution in my post.

The first paragraph refers to FIDE's meaning of the term "position" in the handbook in general and art. 9.2.3 in particular. That only relevance is to defining the game rather than solving it.

The second and third paragraphs are concerned with @tygxc's pronouncements on how he intends to solve chess, which have never been completely explicit, but have from the outset been at least explicit enough to be sure they're not related to any sort of solution.

In particular I was pointing out that his use of Tromp's figure for positions in a simplified version of basic rules chess as a starting point for the nodes in his search space using SF as the search tool, which is designed for a simplified version of competition rules chess is not remotely close. And neither is the number of positions according to his second definition of "position" which in turn is not remotely close to Tromp's number.

Further to what I said in my post, when you say, " it is possible to guarantee no such issue will come about in a weak solution", it's questionable. It's certainly true that we have a weak solution of competition rules chess that (necessarily) accommodates the 50 move and triple repetition rules. The Syzygy tablebase generation algorithm is a solution. But I would say the issues have already come about in arriving at the algorithm. The Nalimov algorithm is a strong solution of basic rules chess but it may not do as any sort of solution of competition rules chess. You can't just ignore the 50M/3R rules in creating a weak solution of competition rules chess.

If @tygxc would be so kind as to produce a flowchart or pseudocode for something that might remotely be a weak solution of competition rules chess in principle (ignoring computing time and space requirements) we could say whether the issues of the 50M/3R rules arise or not.

I can provide the algorithm/flowchart with proof (its quite simple), but idk if tygxc knows how to prove it. he might stumble upon it by accident though, even though he wont know why it's a proof.

There is no issue with 3-fold repetition in weak solution - repetition is return to a position already visited (something fine if you are seeking a draw and always avoided if you are seeking a win). 50 move rule is like an additional stalemate rule - it makes a line successful for the proponent without more analysis.

I think I am correct in saying that when you are finding a weak solution with two drawing strategies, you can pretend there is a 2-fold repetition rule for drawing without compromising the solution. (This is a recollection - do dispute if there is reason!)

So could I. But I don't believe it would correspond with anything @tygxc has said.

If you can post a forward search algorithm (obviously not one guaranteed to complete in practicable time) that would be a useful start.

I'm not saying the rules are problems if you adopt a valid method. But the methods adopted must take the rules into account because you don't know chess is a draw. What you described does take the rules into account, so I would say in a sense that the issues of the 50M/3R rules have arisen (and been dealt with) in your suggested procedure. Syzygy tablebase generation is another valid approach that accommodates the rules.

My original post was concerned with whether @tygxc is justified in taking Tromp's number for the legal positions in (a simplified version of) basic rules chess as the starting point for the number of nodes in SF's search space or the number of nodes referred to in published nodes/sec figures. I say not.

SF will continue an evaluation beyond the 50 move rule count, and beyond any 9.2.3 double repetitions, so the points you mention are not relevant to @tygxc's "solution". SF with 5 days think time will also usually only guess whether it's winning drawing or losing when considering whether to move into or allow a triple repetition.

You can pretend there is a 2-fold repetition rule for drawing, but you can't tell a standard version of Stockfish to do the same in the middle of a 5 day think, and I don't think @tygxc has anywhere suggested doing that.

MEGA - comparisons between Washi's behaviour and tygxc's continue to be interesting to me.
Why?
When dealing with a thing - it can be useful to better define that thing.
What is it? What is its nature?
Now I'm going to 'get in trouble' if I mention the O-person by name.
The involuntarily absent person.
I'm willing to compromise though. So no direct mention.
---------------------------------------
Washi has none of the arrogance of the O-person.
There's no claims of 'superiority'. Which with O are pathetic.
But what about tygxc?
-------------------------------
I also want to show respect for the moderator here.
Who's shown patience and is helpful to the forum.
Plus I don't want to get in trouble that way either.
---------------------------------
So - how to do this.
Some persons want to maintain they have 'unique and superior ability'.
And 'O' has been pushing that ad nauseum for ten years. Pathetically.
-----------------------------
But does tygxc have the same issue?
He 'conceals' it a Million times better than that other guy.
What are we dealing with here?
How do we talk to somebody who 'secretly' is maintaining he 'knows better than everybody else - so much so that he thinks he can defy the realities of mathematics'
How do you talk to such a person?
Especially in the second person.
Is any actual person to person conversation even feasible in such a case?
Would such a person even let such conversation even Happen?
-----------------------------------
One of the tests for this:
How does the person act - when its a different subject in a different forum?
Washi is very different when the conversation is outside climate denial.
The 'Sherlock-ism' disappears.
But what about the t-guy?
How does anyone reason with 'always knows better' (while ironically being Dead Wrong).