Chess will never be solved, here's why

Martin - that was funny.
I forgot to refresh the screen and posted the Wiki link but you put 'don't believe Wikipedia' appeared instantly after.
Or maybe one trillionth of a nanosecond later?
Actually you probably posted before I did -
but chess.com has many glitches - so my posts keep posting earlier on the screen anyway.

Martin - Troitsky apparently described a zone on the board that's relevant.

My theory is that the "Troitzky line rule" was a rumour started by Fine rather than Troitzky. It's a useful rule of thumb, but with millions of exceptions. Troitzky certainly invented the line, but I think it was limited to stating the king with the pawn has no win/draw zones iff the pawn is on or behind the line (no mention of whether the pawn is blocked). That is a hard and fast rule. 

I think I was the last person to edit the description you referred to but there's a group of editors who control what people can add, while not understanding the endgame, so also limit what you can say. I tried to make it as clear as I could that the the Troitzky line rule becomes almost exact if the pawn is blocked by one of two mutually defending knights directly in front of the pawn, when the rule has only 36 positions that are exceptions (essentially 3 special cases), but as clear as I could was unfortuately not particularly clear.

Martin - apparently John Nunn indicated that computers confirmed the Troitsky zone as having astonishing accuracy.
Troitsky of course was long dead before computers came along.
I'm avoiding 'line' because it suggests 'sequence of moves'.
So instead 'zone'.

No such thing as the Troitzky zone. Troitzky referred to zones (plural) for the king for each position of the pawn where the king could avoid a loss irrespective of the position of White's pieces.

I believe Nunn said Troitzky's analysis was astonishingly accurate rather than his "zone". I have too much respect for Nunn to think he would say the same of the Wikipaedia article. And Troitzky's line is completely accurate in the context I mentioned earlier, but the Troitzky line rule as documente anywhere is not (but also not, I think, part of Troitzky' analysis).

Troitzky's analysis, by the way, was limited to basic rules chess. I don't think anything but Syzygy or Huntigdon's (not generally available, so far as I know) DTM50 tablebase can play the endgame under competition rules.

"No such thing as the Troitzky zone."
I explained why I used Zone.
Troitsky zone with a small z.
Instead of 'line'.
I think you understood.
Troitsky's analysis.
Maybe you'll 'force' me to use the word 'line'.
Which could mislead anyone entering the foum to think that's a 'line' of moves which it isn't.
We can always use 'jargon' that would only be for the In Set.
I choose to resist that.
---------------------------
Regarding 'basic rules chess' do you care to comment as to when that would apply in everyday chess situations?
Again - so that anybody new to the forum (or unversed or relatively unversed) would know better what you mean by that?
As opposed to it being a 'theoretical opposite of Competition Rules chess'?

Martin - does Basic Rules chess only happen 'in theory'?
If it happens in Reality - care to mention as to when where how who what that is?

Described here under "Basic Rules of Play". Should be used if competition rules are not applicable (search FIDE documentation for when they should apply).

But pre 2017 the 50M/3R rules were included in that section.

I think Troitzky was pre FIDE, but different rules were in force. The 50M rule was in force for tournament play but not match play (but I think changed to 100M for that particular endgame in Troitzky's time). In any case analysis has almost invariably ignored 50M and by it's nature ignores 3R.

I glanced at that article just now.
There's no relief there.
Maybe one could read the whole thing 100 times and not know exactly what they are referring to.
Tournament play versus Match play?
Then 'competition rules' would be a poor choice of terminology since those are both competititons.
------------------------------
I have yet to see or play a game of chess where the game started with one player saying to the other 'no 50 move or 3 fold ... OK?'
Other player responds: 'Okay but if you've got perpetual check I'm going to keep moving and pressing my clock until your flag is down and claim a win.'
Argument. Whether at the time or before the game begins.

"line" is chess jargon, but as used in "Troitzky line" it just means "line" as in something that goes from one place to another, the left hand side of the board to the right in this case.

Since Troitzky (and engame literature in general) uses "zone" to mean something completely different, I think "Troitzky line" in conformance with everyone else would be more understandable to anyone entering the forum or not.

Simply inventing meanings for terms doesn't mean other people automatically understand what you intend. If there are terms that already have the intended meaning, they're more likely to understand those.

This reminds me of a situation that did happen in a tournament I played in.
The tournament was just starting.
First round.
I sat down with my opponent (never played or met before) and the pieces getting set up by us.
Then abruptly I get from that opponent vehemently 
'If you touch a piece You Move It !!'
Right out of the Blue. (was tempted to direct that player to the nearest lake)
--------------------------------------
Maybe I should have replied:
'We're playing the 50 move rule and 3 fold too. And perpetual check as particular case of 3 fold. You must Abide by the Rules!'
and then added: Should I make sure you know all the Rules?'
and then reported that opponent for Unsportsmanlike conduct?
--------------------------------
Better maybe: Interrupt immediately and say 'Don't tell me the rules. Be quiet.' Interrupt every single time.
If other players complain - get the tournament director.

Not quite true.

Based on the Troitsky 'line' (which is not a sequence of moves) or 'zone' (supposedly a problem with that too) so instead Troitsky analysis (lets see if that one works) ...
It is how far the pawn is advanced that is key

'The Russian theoretician Troitsky made a detailed study of this endgame and discovered the following rule:
If the pawn is securely blockaded by a white knight no further down than the line, then Black loses, no matter where the kings are.'
that's from the Wiki article.
The line is not straight. Its crooked - but there's two diagrams of it that look very different in the article. And the second diagram looks like a Zone. Not a 'line'.
The idea of a zone comes up in more than one ending.
Zone of the passed pawn.
many if not most players 'C' and above would know that one I think.
There's a kind of zone in the Vancura position.
Masters would probably know about the 'Vancura position' but would even GM's memorize it? Its obscure.

straight up huffman codes are cool og but hilariously outdated. the LZ77 compressor hybrids HC but theres alot better still for a lossless pointer. for my poverty-stricken try 4a hardcount gamestart 10-ply i emulsified sha-256 (python). funny ?...it works but i only got like 54 million-billion unique positions (btw how do u catch a unique unicorn ?) (uneek up on it...sooo dum lol !) so i skrooed up s/w.

its been richly-solved to s/t like 68 mm-bb hex hashstrings. u old ppl still tryn2solve this via gruntforce methods will probly giggle w/nostagia at this . the problem is that studio 54 closed back in the 1900's. but sat nite fever still warm septacockles (u guys keep thinkn sugar plum fairy k ?...burst !)

i can show u my lossless data scratch (python) if u wanna see it. its only like < 25 lines. but i know sweating a buncha antminers into liquid-dip submission isnt gonna dent this law of truly large numbers (truly = if it exists (per persi)).

"but I've never seen it referred to as "the Troitzky zone". The phrase would be a little confusing because Troitzky talks of many zones."
'the' referred to 2 knights versus pawn.
So the term 'a' could be used instead.
'a' Troitsky zone.
-----------------
Regarding 'don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia'
one doesn't have to believe everything anywhere.
But it can still be read and copy pasted and Wiki isn't the worst source.
 If the term 'a Troitsky zone' isn't liked - then one can say 'Troitsky analysis'.
Frankly I prefer 'zone' because that's what there.
A zone.
-------------------------------
I guess its possible a player who plays 1000 games a year - 
might average one position a year with two knights against a pawn.
And one a year without the pawn.
Upon the position getting to the first one - reaction.
'Since there's a pawn there - and its back - maybe this is winnable.
Lets see - can I force that king to the edge of the board with just my king and one of my knights - while keeping the pawn blocked with my other knight?"
(In knight and bishop versus King - another obscure ending - your King and bishop can force the lone king to the edge - while your knight provides zugzwang when you need it - and some extra help. But players might go through 80 years of chess and not see that ending once.)
---------------------------------
Is there an 'aesthetic effect' in chess?
Definitely.
And in a lot of things.
And that's one of the reasons that things like B+N versus lone King get attention.
Although 'aesthetic' isn't quite a perfect term for it.
Because it pertains to art.
But there's a similiar effect in science and math things. And in sports things and even in military things. Non-artistic things.
An 'appreciation' or 'positive reaction' to things non-artistic or only partially artistic.

Computer buzz-talk combined with large number lingo?
Maybe throw in a little Cal-speak too?

That was some excellent technobabble!

Anyhow, it turns out that Syzygy tablebases use custom compression based on RE-PAIR.

Having been in a class taught by Huffman and hearing the story firsthand, I will say that I was not overly impressed. He kind of stumbled onto something by accident, he literally threw it all in the trash, and only after somebody else pointed out to him that the coding was useful did he fish it out of his office trash can. Many advances happen this way, but the ones where the creator understands the meaning and/or value of their own creation are far more impressive.

I also was not impressed by Yukihiro Matsumoto, who created Ruby. I had a conversation with him once and tried to tell him that he needed to spend more time on working database drivers and Windows porting, but he was spending all his time working on Ruby for embedded systems, which killed the golden goose. That shift in direction was purely based on Unix vs. Windows bias, and it was a colossally bad decision. I guess Python programmers can be happier for it, though.