I feel we should try to keep this impersonal. In addition, let's ignore @tygxc's eccentric misuse of terminology such as "solve", "ultra-weak solve" and his obstinate refusal to acknowledge the key distinction between a proof and a probabilistic argument. While annoying it is just bad semantics.
Given that, it's worth emphasising that while it isn't solving chess in the well-established unique sense, probabilistic analysis can be interesting and worthwhile. An example of this is Tromp's valid probabilistic procedure for estimating the number of legal chess positions, with clearly quantified uncertainty.
A grand aim which may be more accessible that solving chess might be to determine a valid probabilistic estimate of the chance that chess is a draw. We have not seen this - only estimates that are invalid for well-defined reasons. The question is whether there could be any such method.
It is possible/likely that the very heterogeneous and arbitrary nature of chess would make such an aim impractical. But can we find any way to attack this problem?
I think tygxc's claim that he knows more than everybody here should not be ignored.
It reveals motivation.
Plus its a false claim.
Proven by others more knowledgable constantly. Or more logical. Or both.
I knew instantly years ago his claims were false as soon as he tried to claim that the fundamental speeds of computers involved 'don't matter'.
And again when he 'took the square root'.
--------------------------------------
My point is what his posts are really 'about'.
And when he falsely claimed 'knows more' - a big chunk of 'what its about' suddenly revealed. Very reminiscent of the 'absent person'.
He's still a 'foil' (in a positive sense) to the discussion though and unlike that absent person - keeps the forum mostly 'on topic'.
Its just that when anybody asks 'why is tygxc doing this' it seems he has now provided a lot of the answer.
As you say @Elroch it can be 'less personal' now - because that part has been partly 'solved' now. No pun intended.
Lots of people know more about maths than you do. This tygxc person is probably one of them. Nothing conceited about that.
I didn't say me.
tygxc claimed he knew more than anybody here.
You didn't read properly.
But that's okay. I can ignore.