Chess will never be solved, here's why

Wake up! I just posted a position from a tablebase with en passant being possible and told you so.

Neither of those rules is expensive to include.

Also "weak" is a bad word to use. It is non-standard, it has a standard meaning in the solving of chess, and it is neither easy to guess what it means nor, IMHO, at all good as a choice of word. Far better to refer to any specific deficiency of a specific tablebase explicitly, which you have not. If you want me to do it for you, Syzygy does not deal with castling rights. Not a design decision I would have made, but there it is.

If you want a position with 7 pieces that deals with e.p. correctly, here you go:

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=3qkb2/8/8/8/4Pp2/8/8/3QK3_b_-_e3_0_1

yeah weak refers to a specific type of incompleteness, while you are just positing incompleteness itself

I prefer to use 'weak' in a common sense of the word - instead of as jargon.
Yes - scientific terminology has its place. Must be.
But - the fact that 'a tablebase' happened to include en passant (but not castling) does not contradict what I'm saying.
Which is that tablebases that don't include both en passant and castling as they try to progress from 7 pieces to 8 pieces and 9 and 10 and so on are Weak.
The fact they 'didn't bother' is no excuse.
Castling and en passant are just too basic to the game to be excluded or 'not bothered with'.
----------------------------------------
Yes - you each know more math than the math than I have both forgotten and remember but you're not going to convince me that such 'skipping' table bases are Strong.
They're not Strong. So they're weak.
We could waste a lot of energy. But that's unlikely.
----------------------------
I think you both understand the logic I'm getting at.
But I'm not the T-person nor the O-person.
Which means I don't need for such points to be my 'life's work' nor to personalize it.
You don't either. Right?
That's a question. A friendly one.
But no need to answer. Questions aren't thunder.
And the disagreement is minor - that's if it exists at all.

Jeez. I JUST TWICE POINTED OUT THAT Syzygy DEALS WITH EN PASSANT COMPLETELY AND GAVE EXAMPLES.

You seem to be trying to merit a one letter abbreviation.

And you just told me it skips castling. By omission.
Permit me to be right.
Lol!
Put on a happy face Elroch.
Life is short.
You wouldn't be bored to tears if you were right 100% of the time?
Well maybe not. That could be Interesting.
But please remember - you're not the T-person nor the O-person.
Which means you don't need to be 'right'.
Right?

I want to repeat the joke I just told in your forum E.
An article on a search page I just brought up stated that one third of persons aged 85 have some dementia.
But on the the same page another article stated that the rate of dementia for seniors doubles every five years.
Going by the two articles that would mean:
At age 90 two thirds of seniors would have some dementia.
And at age 95 133% of seniors would be demented at least somewhat.
133%. Whaatt??
Hey Kool! 133%! Far out! Gnarly! Copacabana!

prediction with 60% confidence - Elroch will 'apply' ... that's right.
Lets see if the 60 'comes in'.

never speak again

I just did.

P: Not even 'weakly tablebased' - which 7 pieces is.

E: There's no such thing. A tablebase is a strong solution of every position it contains.

I'd say P would have been correct had he meant by "weakly tablebased" providing a weak solution of every position it contains. He was responding to @tygxc who talks only of solving versions of chess that include 50M/3R positions because he thinks basic rules chess is insoluble.

P has since made it plain that he didn't mean that but intends (like a certain absent friend) to avoid jargon (meaning invent his own terms without any necessity of definition so that everyone can understand them).

E is definitely incorrect in that context. Syzygy provides a weak solution of of every position it contains under competition rules. It provides a strong solution of virtually no positions it covers that are not already mate or dead under competition rules, though it does provide a strong solution of every position it contains under basic rules.

It's also a pretty safe bet that no tablebase (not even for KRvK) that provides a strong solution of every position it contains under competition rules will be produced by 2100, if only because nobody will attempt it.

Nobody appears to have corrected this so far, so I'll give you a clue.

People 'using the jargon' can ever convince others that skipping castling or en passant or both is Ever 'strongly solving'?
There's a thing called 'friendly disagreement' - with neither side spamming and both sides having a reasonable position ...
that's in intense contrast with 'T' and 'O'.
So if 'disagreement' is 'essential' to healthy discussion - friendly disagreement Can Do. But maybe its only going to be 'Could Do.'
I had a 'friendly disagreement' with Dio several days ago about something concerning 'luck in chess'.
Its over. 
-----------------------------
Conclusion: neither side will budge a millimeter but the friendly disagreement appears to be about the semantics of 'luck' and 'in' and 'chess'.
A slight improvement would have occurred if the topic had been set up as 'chess has luck' ... 'has' instead of 'in'. But the semantics issues of what 'chess' means and what 'luck' means would still have continued.
Why mention here? Because I think that topic is relevant.
The whole forum doesn't have to just be about 'exposing and refuting T' (which constantly goes on and good thing)
-------------------------------
Regarding weak and strong and weakly and strongly I maintain that the usage of those terms is better if their common meanings are used.
I believe it'll continue to be in friendly disagreement with those who maintain that the usage should be jargon-usage.
Perhaps better would have been if whoever setting up the terms had used the words 'purely' and 'imperfectly'. Much better.
Then the terms not only become better - then they lead better into 'scalar and generic'. Instead of 'binary and technical'.

As Elroch pointed out, tablebases don't skip e.p. They don't address positions with castling, just as they don't at present address 12 man or 32 man positions. That shouldn't be a bar to persuading people that they strongly solve the positions they do address so long as it's true.

In fact it's not true under competition rules but it is true under basic rules. And it is true that they weakly solve the positions they address under competition rules; there should be no bar to persuading people of that either.

It does require that people understand what you're trying to persuade them of. That is they need to learn the jargon. It's there to avoid people talking at cross purposes.

If you have a conversation where each side means different things by the words in use then all you are likely to finish up with is a disagreement (friendly or otherwise).

You later refer to the common meanings of the terms "weakly" and "strongly". There are no commonly agreed meanings to those terms in this context apart from what you refer to as the jargon.

Martin - politely and in a friendly way - you seem to be ignoring castling.
People don't have to have math and science credentials to know that castling is basic to the game.

No I'm not. Nor am I ignoring 12 man or 32 man positions.

I'm not claiming that any of the tablebases so far is either a weak or a strong solution of either basic rules or competition rules chess, I'm talking only about whether they are weak or strong solutions of the positions they address.

Further tablebases can in principle, and in some cases in practice, be produced to cover both positions with more men and positions with castling rights and even positions with repetitions under art 9.2.3 under competition rules (though not in practice in that case, I would say).

Martin you once asked me about what terms I suggest.
Better might be terms like 'purely' and 'imperfectly'.
Generic terms.
Yes we could table tennis about even the word 'solved' and what that does or should mean.
That table tennis would go nowhere.
To me - 'solved' implies strength. Not 'weak'.
Is it 'about me' though? I say no.
Its about presenting things generically.
I don't say I have all the answers.
----------------------------
Idea: how difficult would it be to make an estimate of the total number of checkmate positions in chess?
Would that number be much less than the 4 x 10^44 number?
Yes. But by how much?
If that number is determined - then the number of mate in one positions would soon be known too.
-----------------------------------------
Why do I mention?
Because various members were talking about the significance of positions being 'mate in x or less moves available'.
As defining a win.
You could also define by 'mate in minimum x moves even with helpmate moves'
Point: Maybe that's a better angle than tablebasing.
Although its not completely exclusive to tablebasing.

Martin you once asked me about what terms I suggest.Better might be terms like 'purely' and 'imperfectly'.Generic terms.Yes we could table tennis about even the word 'solved' and what that does or should mean.That table tennis would go nowhere.To me - 'solved' implies strength. Not 'weak'.

Why invent your own terms when people investigating the topic have already produced standard terms. Nobody is going to understand what you're talking about. How long do you want the thread to last?

"I'm not claiming that any of the tablebases so far is either a waek or a strong solution of either basic rules or competition rules chess,"
Good for you Martin.
And I'm suggesting that neither 'strong' nor 'weak' are good terms for classifying solutions.
How did 'weak' ever get in there?
Probably because 'strong' got in first and then 'weak' got in as its opposite.
The dubious nature of that terminology increases when 'ultra-weakly' then gets in there too.
Then it might occur to some that the set of different 'degrees' of thoroughness of solving might begin to become a big set.
That such 'degree of solving' is beginning to look scalar instead of binary.

The thread has lasted through all kinds of things.
At least two have tried hard to make it about them.
One of them - not so badly.
He's still here. He's not going away.
I haven't 'invented' anything. I have no red telephone.
People get to express themselves here.
You don't have to do what I'm suggesting Martin.
You know that.
You also know that I'm maintaining that a 'solution' that doesn't include castling can never be a 'strong' solution. And then 'weak' ceases to be valid too.
Its not meant to be 'annoying' but if you insist on being annoyed you know I can't stop you from being annoyed.

"You also know that I'm maintaining that a 'solution' that doesn't include castling can never be a 'strong' solution. And then 'weak' ceases to be valid too."
'Nobody' is going to understand that?
From Dio earlier:
"Weak and strong do not apply so let's not muddy up that terminology any more than Tygxc et al already muck them up. Tablebases that skip castling and en passant are incomplete"
Incomplete. Another better word.
Dio also 'informed' about gallium arsenide.
And yes Elroch had already begun to say (I think) that Moore's Law wasn't really continuing to hold anyway.
One of my aims: interfere with 'nodes per second'.

Can you tell me this forum is guerilla warfare?