Chess will never be solved, here's why

Regarding radical extreme invalid positions - 
there's a consistent pattern on the website - like this:
the more extreme the position - the less likely that person will be influenced to discard it or improve it. If anything that person might go even more extreme.
This includes discarding or modifying the extreme position on his own.
Or her own.
The common way of saying this is:
"On social media on the net nobody changes anybody else's mind."
--------------------------------------
But that's mainly concerning extreme positions.
The more moderate and objective the position - and the person 
and the broader the view - the more likely conversation progresses
and becomes informative as opposed to adversarial while still having a healthy proportion of adversarial.

We seem to have morphed into a Psychology thread.

Psychology (meaning what psychology describes) is always involved.
Its not in a box somewhere.
Even when somebody solves an equation.
They wouldn't have bothered - if psychology isn't there.
-------------------------------------
Martin have you noticed the newcomers saying?
'you guys are going around in circles. You're not getting anywhere.'
I think some progress is being made.
Does progress have to be 'knocked'?
I see these continuing exchanges between MEGA and the t-guy.
And they're much less hopeless than the exchanges between the person you don't want me to mention and the entire forum.
There's always 'psychology'.
Including 'popularity contests'.

'game theoretic value' can be improved on.
There's Got to be better clearer ways to put it.
Not 'humanizing' ways. Just better clearer ways.
I don't have all the answers.
Regarding your earlier post Martin - I didn't get to it yet.
But now I'll put this from that post:
"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."
Lol!
But Martin you see the t-guy maintaining he 'knows better than everyone else'.
I think you probably saw that post of his. He made it a few hours ago.
His idea of 'conversation'. Remind you of somebody?
------------------------------------------
and in the conversation with MEGA we got to this point:
---------------------------------------

"Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition."
Did they have to word it that way because they have to allow for different games?
----------
yes (from MEGA)
-------
If there's going to be terminology used for mathematical situations then the terminology should be as unambiguous as possible.
If they're talking about win or lose or draw - then they should use those terms instead of jargon.
------
from M
"many games covered in game theory do not have outcomes restricted to just that, sometimes you are trying to get the highest score independent of whatever those around you reach, or just trying to "survive", or more."
----
In school - I was extremely strong in math and physics. And geography.
But not in history or languages. Lol!
It was a long time ago.
But one of the reasons I was so strong in math is that I didn't allow any ambiguities unless it was absolutely necessary.
---------
from M
the specifics are defined in the games themselves. the mathematical representation that is.
-------
Yes if you're going to have unknowns and some of them can't be solved then you might end up with a function or graph instead of a solution.
But the idea was to never do that unless you had to.
--------------
Trying to 'start over' to avoid an ever-growing 'nested quote'.
----------------------
But now - any progress yet as to zapping 'game theoretic value' and putting it more intelligibly?
So that 'weakly solved' isn't so 'weak'.

I would like to make the observation that the thing that has made modern engines particularly strong - very low branching factors, the consequence of higher quality evaluation routines - it may help keep the exponent of the number of basic chess positions (cf about 2/3 for checkers) down for a reason I missed at first.

When doing the forward search part of the solution of a game (a la Schaeffer) it is a fact that in the end you need to deal with all legal opponent moves against a strategy, so it might appear that the low branching property is only useful for picking the strategy proponent moves - it makes the top choice more likely to be optimal. But it also can help to cut down the "wasted" computing time that results from the first picks sometimes being blunders. Rather than only discovering this after constructing a tree which deals with all legal moves at each stage, by building it in an order much more similar to the construction of a tree while Stockfish plays chess, bad lines should be should be refuted much more quickly. And rather than waiting for a rigorous refutation of the first candidate move, when something like Stockfish normal analysis revises the evaluation for a candidate so that it is lower than that of an alternative, it might be time to start analysing the alternative instead.

This does not stop it being necessary, in the end, to have a tree for a white strategy where every black move is explicitly included, it just gets to good white moves more quickly, (It might also be hoped that concentrating on the apparently best candidates (based on better and better analysis) would somewhat constrain the opposing play, in a way which might help make the tree smaller).

After reading through Elroch's post just now - 
it reminds me that 'game tree' analysis is even more daunting and 'cruelly' daunting than tablebase analysis.
Which is going a long way when you consider how 'daunting' tablebase analysis is!
Daunting. Insurmountably difficult.
Like walking across the Sahara carrying a pint of water.

Is that the t-guy's idea of 'conversation'?
Does it remind us of a certain 'absent' person?
Is that really what t-guy's positions have been all about these two years?
With the attitude 't' just displayed - or should I make it T ...
how does anybody ever actually talk to T?
Its never happened. 
I've proven that people can talk to Washi. ExploringWA that is.
He can have a real conversation.
Why do I mention?
Because of the exchanges here between MEGA and the T-guy.
And the other 'T exchanges' going on for two years here.
'exchanges'.

Or travelling to the Andromeda galaxy.
Even Spock couldn't do it.
Nor the T-guy.

Yeah, but Q could.

idk if the kessel run can be done in 12 parsecs i dont think we should set limitations like that

Isn't there an error there in the movie?
parsec is a measure of distance not time.
Like light-year which is actually a very Heavy measure of distance.
In a Trek Episode Kirk or whoever said something like 'one to the tenth power' in a context of that being a gigantic number ...
but guess what its just .... one. Still.
What did the Zen guy say to the hot dog guy?
'Make me One with everything'
Reminds me that Big Bangers want it that 'there Can be Only One'
but I like more than one sausage when that's part of breakfast.

Not really. E.g. Betelgeuse is usually about 222 parsecs away, but if you get your welly down and keep (√3/2)c on the clock all the way, you can do it in 111 parsecs. Just got to watch out for the speed traps.

Han solo would NEVER lie...

And Obi Wan didn't catch the error.
How would Sir Alec have put it ...
'My good man - parsec is a measure of Distance! You must learn the ways of the Force if you're to come with me to Alderon'
Han Solo: 'You're out of your depth Old Man - when shifting to light speed you minimze the distance and my ship the Falcon did the plot and hit the correct route and got the record because of that minimal distance'.

And trying to solve chess by those methods leads to a dead end.

So you can hold your hands up and say "We Know Nothing" or you can try something else. Maybe solve it with a scientific proof rather than a mathematical one.

You should know that 'solved' is a plain English word, not a technical term defined by mathematicians.

You could. But the topic isn't, "Chess will never be something elsed, here's why".

I don't think solved as a plain English word means anything significantly different from "weakly solved" as a technical term. If you're given a "White to play and draw" or "White to play and win", you'd hardly say, "I solved it, but I can't tell you what the moves are if Black plays different moves". If you can't you're more likely to hold up your hands and say, "I don't know", and in that case you'd be correct.

I think maybe english is not T-guy's first language.
Perhaps he has 'credentials' from a non-english speaking country.
But what country? Perhaps he'll never tell us.
But my first guess would be - the country of Sveshnikov.
A little place called ... Russia.

Nah. Sounds more like Trump University USA. Only place that might have let him on a course.