Chess will never be solved, here's why

Not quite true. @tygxc does sometimes (but not always).

@12807

Again:
Promotions happen in chess games, and neither the Gourion paper nor the file with 10,000 sample positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured exclude those:
they exclude only promotions to pieces not previously captured.

Promotions to pieces not previously captured happen occasionally in master games or ICCF games, but when they happen, then promotions are to a queen.
Underpromotions happen occasionally in master games or ICCF games,
but when they happen, the piece promoted to is already captured.

Underpromotions to pieces not previously captured do not happen in master games or ICCF games, so should not be counted when talking about optimal play by both sides as relevant to weakly solving Chess.

If the Laws of Chess were changed so you could only promote to either a queen,
or a piece previously captured, then all master games and ICCF games would stay the same,
with the same moves and the same outcome.
So the count should be as if the Laws of Chess were thus changed.

Again, repeated stupid claims is not a valid form of reasoning.

You take tiny samples of not provably optimal play and generalise to a set that is almost incomprehensibly bigger. The number of ICCF positions in particular is MINISCULE! But even the master database (containing play that is up to 1400 points weaker than optimal) only contains around a billion positions. Even ignoring the absurdity of suggesting these are optimal, it's only about 10^37 as many as the set of all legal positions, and perhaps 10^20 times smaller than a proof tree for chess.

So far as I can see, Elroch, you're repeating the same mistakes. Firstly, your belief that Zermelo's theorem can be used to prove that chess can be represented mathematically is a childish mistake. The idea that mathematical induction can be used to map a solution of the simplest linearly solveable games to chess is a childish error. They are mutually incommensurable and therefore the mathematical induction becomes philosophical induction. You are unintelligent not to understand that. Used in that sense, Zermelo's Theorem is bogus.

Secondly, you actually claimed (twice!) that you could write a program to represent chess mathematically. If you could do that, then you should do it since it would make you world famous. But it was another invention or pretence.

The really amusing thing was that you claimed to be supported by intellectual heavyweights such as playerafar, Dio, BigChessplayer, Rattigan and others. How can they possibly lend weight to anyone's arguments? You seem to have no conception as to how ridiculous that is!!

You haven't satisfied me that chess can be represented mathematically and your arguments fall apart because of that, since you criticise inductive reasoning in tygxc while taking great pains to unsuccessfully hide the fact that you rely on it yourself. You have no-one with any credentials to back you up and indeed, anyone with credentials isn't going to be seen dead supporting you. What a shame.

I'm rather surprised you're still trying to carry on with this and can only assume that you are attempting to impress your intellectual heavyweight admirers. I can't see the point because their opinions don't count for anything. I'm too busy at the moment to comment further.

@12810

"repeated stupid claims" ++ My assertions are true and valid.
Please show one master game with an underpromotion to a piece not previously captured.

@12810

"10^20 times smaller than a proof tree for chess"
++ Where does that come from?
Schaeffer had a 10^7 proof tree and a 10^14 search tree for 5*10^20 legal Checkers positions.

Sorry, Rattigan, I'm not answering you. You don't have the credentials to make my trouble worthwhile. Neither does Elroch, for that matter. I like intelligent, honest people.

You seem to have forgotten. I posted this one for you near the start of the thread.

@Optimissed, here is access to a mathematical representation of all chess positions with 7 or fewer pieces on the board:

https://syzygy-tables.info/

And here is a paper about a mathematical representation of checkers to prove its game theoretic value.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231216842_Checkers_Is_Solved

English draughts was the limit that Zermelo's could be stretched to and even that was admitted to be a "weak solution". But draughts is linear in a way that chess isn't.

Mathematical induction is a very basic, deductively valid mapping. It can't be used to link to chess. That's bogus but it isn't anything to be surprised by. Victorian theoreticians were often untrustworthy and I'm just surprised you were taken in by it.

No it's not.

These positions, for example, are not represented.

Well many thanks for that. It's bad enough when you answer something I ask you. Starting to answer me when I didn't ask you anything in the first place would be very tedious.

chess has been solved by my toaster bro yall don't understand

I didn't see anything he was replying to either...careful, this is usually when he accuses people of deleting posts rather than let his infirmities sit there on open display.

I only accuse people of deleting posts when they have deleted posts and they pretend they haven't. I had no idea that you are admired far and wide for your honesty, such that everything you write here is completely dependable and trustworthy.

A tip to save you some effort @Optimissed. Simply copy the sentence, "I haven't the faintest idea what any of this is about", then, whenever you feel inclined to post, just paste it into the text area. It will convey exactly the same message without all that typing.

If you want to add some insults just type them after.

Well now you know...

You have yet to be correct about a single post deletion.

some people think he's onto something at first, but they ALWAYS turn against him in time.

FYI optimissed you should realize that the zermelo stuff applies independently of game complexity.

you should also realize that your definition of a 'mathematical representation' is improper, and that's causing your misunderstanding.

you are interpreting 'mathematical representation' as a human-written algorithm to guarantee and verify a solution of the game.

but a game as a mathematical object/representation is just the ruleset of the game expressed in logical language. human abilities and technology have no bearing here.