Chess will never be solved, here's why

again...just jealous. hism blism lol !

You would be the expert on that.

Troitzky gave a very comprehensive, but still incomplete, solution of the White wins under basic rules only. He didn't solve the Black wins. He would have almost certainly failed the White win in 108 against Syzygy from the position I posted here under competition rules.

Tablebases completely solve both White and Black wins under both basic and competition rules (though weakly and from only nodes with no repeated 9.2.2 positions in the latter case).

Thanks for paper showing that Alpha Zero considers there to be a bare minimum of 4.5 candidates per move in classical chess (figure 11, page 23). Handy for refuting you.

Again, I am genuinely curious how someone who literally rejects mathematical logic is challenging anything. give specific examples.

i would be genuinely surprised to find that tygxc cited a single source that did not directly contradict at least one of his claims.

if theres a finite # of moves ?...itll get solved one day. not counting 3-folds. and possibly including 1000+ move games (so long as one sides improving...). its not like SHA-256 where theres a infinite # of permutes [then one day the 10^77 (decimal) permutes gets maxed (and assuming no collisions along the way)].

Or night.
The main factor to 'solving chess' isn't the algorithms or software - nor is it the available money - nor even the amount of man hours put in - nor even the number of years of computer time!
Its the processing speed of the computers.
The Speed.
The speed of the Hardware.
Determines both if and when chess could theoretically be solved.
If its going to take trillions of years - the sun would have engulfed the earth long before then or various other cosmological events would have 'put the kibosh' on the project. Or both.
Or even just extra-major nuclear war on earth.
No more project.

I disagreed with Elroch over this one. He thinks there's a finite # and I thought that for practical purposes the # is infinite. As usual he didn't understand me and so discussion broke down because he's always right even though not v. intelligent.

Someone who can't tell the difference between finite and infinite is probably not the sharpest tool in the box.

Correct. For instance, Elroch believes that the infinite can be counted even though "infinite" literally means "cannot be counted", since finite means countable.

I know that you haven't been sharpened for about 30 years so I know you won't understand what I'm talking about either. I think you've found your level quite nicely.

As I said.

He thinks that some infinities may be larger than other infinities. To determine that, an infinite would need to be counted or otherwise have its magnitude assessed. It comes down to lack of cutting edge (reliable) reasoning ability. It's why you and he fit in so well with some others here. It isn't possible to explain anything to people such as yourself, since where you realise you didn't know something it always turns out that you knew it all along. Special form of magic.

I know that, like some others, you might well imagine that you know it all. There is actually no help possible for such as you, which is why you fit in so well with some others here. It's where the elephants come to d..... .

Narcissism is a problem for you in situations like this because, unlike balanced people, you are unable to comprehend that the knowledge and understanding of the entire mathematical world for a century or so is enormously superior to your own.

If you did want to start to catch up (and had the capability to do so - this seems unlikely, since you are having problems even with the simple distinction between finite and infinite cardinality) any authoritative source would be able to help.

Cardinal numbers (Wikipedia)

Cardinal numbers (Wolfram Mathworld)

Cardinal numbers (The Encyclopedia of Mathematics)

how do we know that the best move isn't sticking a fork into a toaster?

The speed of the Hardware.

I remember s/t. .i just turned 12 (ill be 49 on halloween). my friends father JD hadda computer. he was sooo taken that it hadda 10 megabyte hard drive. oohh-aahh. lol now right ? see where weve come in 35 yrs ?...know where were going in 35 more ? trust me. were gonna oohh & aahh & laff ourselfs to sleep then !

how do we know that the best move isn't sticking a fork into a toaster?

guess its just as good as pop tarts, flowers on the wall, & blueberry pancakes right ?

If you had more self respect, you would understand that you can make whatever argument you wish to make by yourself. I have no intention of reading your junk because I know very well that you will misrepresent it. Make an argument in your own words. The type of people you gather round you show you for what you are. If any of them were in any way intellectually capable, they would stay well clear of you.

Incidentally, you told me a while back you had been employed as a scientist. I had a look and noted that you were working as a mechanical engineer, doing some experiments and related theory on natural ventilation for sites, maybe 20 years ago. That's very worthwhile. Fluid mechanics and a bit of thermodynamics = mechanical engineering. It's good because it requires experimentation, probably with models and maybe also on site with wind speed devices positioned all over the place. Measurements help you keep your runaway ideas in check.

However, what you are attempting to pronounce upon here is simply your opinion and we know from experience that you always deny there are theoreticians who disagree with those you agree with. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to have a proper conversation with you. If you don't understand something, you deny it exists and that has been noted often. So I'm afraid you're required to make a verbal argument, say, regarding how you can measure or count something that is defined as infinite.