Chess will never be solved, here's why

BC you are beginning posts with 'dunno'.
That's correct. You don't know.
No need for me to read your posts like that further as contradicting yourself subsequently by pretending you do know isn't worth reading.
You try So Hard to be annoying - but keep failing.
Somehow - you begin truthfully with 'dunno' - but then mess it up.

Elroch right on both points - about tygxc being wrong on both points.
But tygxc isn't afraid. Not ever. Once more into the Breach!

@12943

When I got FIDE rated, you had to be 2200+ to get a FIDE rating. CM did not yet exist.
All on the downhill road.

Sigh yet you only want people to argue with you or not talk about you while projecting your opinions on everyone else to supposedly "win " I don't know what your objective is though anger people that's my best guess if so you so a good job of it ?

If you can project to everyone about their problems you can't just pretend to ignore them like a jerk that's called "hypocrisy " your just a hypocrite

And there's the 'sigh' again from BC.
I caught the word 'project' after that. Didn't read the rest of it.
I haven't projected once BC.
Unlike O and unlike you I have zero need to be dishonest.
At the beginning - you didn't get it about Optimissed and tried to foolishly compare him with Dio.
Then you slowly caught on about O.
You realized he was much worse than you thought.
But continued your blunder of trying to make that to be about others.
You failed to correct the rest of your spiels.
Is early chess skill making you conceited?
-----------------------------------------------
Much later you caught O trash-talking mpaetz and rebuked O for that.
In his insecurity - he tried to intimidate you suggesting you're an alt.
Trying to 'retaliate'.
A pathetic tactic he often uses.
But it didn't work. All of a sudden he gets himself muted by chess.com.
Point: It wasn't about me. It wasn't about Dio.
But all the time you try to make things as being about something else that they're not.
Keep messing up.
Maybe that'll 'work' somehow - 2000 years from now.

But tygxc is the 'foil'.
A kind of engine of illogic that stimulates these 'solved' forums.
He provokes others to make the 'real' comments about the difficulties of solving chess.

just because tygxc is catastrophically horrible at logical deduction doesnt mean they arent a great chess player/evaluator of chess abilities. by trying to argue on that point you guys are giving his completely fallacious arguments wiggle room they do not deserve

Easy breezy, we just need to mine all chess games instead of Bitcoin.

tygxc's illogic is constantly interfered with by good people here including yourself MEGA.
Perhaps you rightly believe that tygxc isn't nearly as transparent as O is.
Yes - kids might be more vulnerable to tygxc than to O in an obscure context regarding tygxc exaggerating the strength and 'proving ability' of chess engines and his related math illogics - and then being obstinate when talked to about that. But aside from that tygxc is innocent. Apparently honest about everything else. Unlike O.
---------------------------
tygxc clinging to his invalid positions is like a tiny grain of sand in a big beach of denialisms of climate science - denials of vaccination - flat earthism and so on. tygxc doesn't do those things. He's clean.
Does tygxc know what's motivating him to continue as he is?
I think he likes the forum topic. He finds it interesting.
I'm not speaking for him. He has said so.
He wants the discussions to pertain to that.
That makes him a billion times better than 'O'.

Stockfish blunders in 6 and 7 piece table base positions

then SF shouldnt be calcing out 6 to 7 piece TB positions. it should turn it to a rigid solutionist like sygyzy right ?

so. does it ?

Stockfish has these things that in software we often call "settings"...and you can choose whether Stockfish will use a tablebase or not.

It can't calc out to 6 to 7 man tablebases using Syzygy because 7 man is the highest you get in Syzygy.

It will use the 6 and 7 man Syzygy tables once it gets there if the SyzygyPath option is set by the GUI in use to a URL or sequence of URLs containing the relevant 6 and 7 man tablebases, otherwise not.

If the the 5 man tablebases are not included it may proceed to blunder in 5 man positions, but I think you're pretty safe once you get down to 4 (but, of course, by that time the damage may already be done).

Probably mpaetz deserved it, since I leave him alone if he doesn't write silly posts. He often writes good ones. Glad to see Big Chess Player is finally being honest about you.

I also perceive that you have been totally left behind by events yet again. Oh, the sadness of the insufferably sad!

I think Chess will be solved if a 7 piece table base can exist so can a 32 piece one I'm sure once we have dune level spice tech we will be able to compress data to millions of times smaller in the future once we are all dead. So I'm betting on tech beating the game before the universe swallows us. So while I've seen some ridiculous math about planet sized hard drives it was only a few people ago when the idea of a computer was ridiculous who can guess what people 1000 years from now will have figured out. I like to imagine tiny brain implant chips in the future wifiing to some online database type thing.

Tbh I have beef with both sides

once we are all dead

why do u feel like ur gonna be dead-dead when u die ?...i was born the first time in 1550. then died in 1575. reborn 400 yrs later in 1975. see ?...im still here. voila ! L♥

universe swallows us

forget abt that. its not gonna swallow u. trust me. its gonna spit u out first.

wait...it already did...nvm.

On an only loosely related matter, the Syzygy 7 piece tablebase could be complemented with a 7 piece tablebase that only contains positions where castling rights exist. There is an oddity with the online version that a FEN with castling rights is displayed/entered, but not respected.

This is not such a huge undertaking - of similar difficulty to creating a 5 piece tablebase because there are only 2 configurations for a king and a rook, leaving 5 other pieces to place elsewhere.

Of course the idea is that if castling rights disappear during analysis, you access Syzergy, and if a capture takes place you access a similar tablebase allowing castling with 6 pieces (very much smaller), with other (relatively) titchy ones needed for the whole job.

Commensurate with size, in total this would take about 0.01% as much computing as creating Syzergy.

Did the voodoo priestess that told you about your past lives also tell you that your money had bad mojo and that she would do a burning ceremony with you to rid you of it? Just wondering.

It appears that the current tablebases not accomodating castling indicates how much the tablebases are struggling with the daunting task and prohibitive numbers involved when the impossible task of solving chess is attempted.
Every time another piece is added - there's about a 500 times multiplier to the number of possible positions that is already huge even with seven pieces.
How many more years will it take them to solve for eight pieces?
For nine pieces - multiply that total number of years by 500.
Its not hard to see what the situation is ...
The tablebases are looking at many trillions of years to reach 32 pieces.
But tygxc is Not Afraid.

How would he approach the subject of travelling to Alpha Centauri?
'Hey can be done if the money's there.' ??
----------------------------
How would the mainstream (non-chessplaying) section of humanity view the issue of 'solving chess'?
Probably the same way they view chess in general. Even in russia apparently.
That chess is a waste of time. Valuable time.
In other words that it doesn't matter.
The money 'will be there' for those tablebases.
But not to solve chess.
Algorithms are getting stronger.
Could nine pieces be solved before the year 2100?
----------------------------------
Maybe. Doesn't matter but I'm suggesting the 'money' will be there anyway to work on it though. Its a kind of entertainment rather than something to care about. Its also a math and science project.
Will their be 'clean coal' by 2100? No.
But there might be enough alternative clean energy to coal and oil by then.
Do we care? A lot of people do. Rightly.
Even though most of us won't be around by then.
People care now. Most of those people won't be around by then. They won't care therefore. Not then.
Solving chess? It doesn't matter. So its an entertainment of sorts.
Like Synchronized Swimming in the Olympics.

The obvious way to do it would be to have a set of tablebases with single castling rights which are children of tablebases with two similarly with 3 and 4 all much smaller than the corresponding 0 castling rights child, but a fair few thousand of them. I think there are about 2000 7 man tablebases with rooks - that scheme would produce about another 30000 plus the rest for 3-6 men. I think that's why it's not been done.