Chess will never be solved, here's why

#1802
http://library.msri.org/books/Book29/files/schaeffer.pdf
page 131 line 5

Now for my questions to you:
Do you seriously doubt that 1 d4 or 1 e4 are at least better than 1 a4 or 1 a3?
Do you seriously doubt that white loses by force after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

What is the speed of the computer you are referring to?
Not its speed in chess units.
Its hardware speed.   Number of megahertz.  Clock speed.
If you're saying its speed can only be measured in chess units that sounds extremely flimsy and contrived.
The speed of all computers in the world are to be measured in chess units?
'Positions' ?  All positions would take the same time ?
Have you thought about this at all?

#1813
No, I do not evade the speed of the computer.
I measure the speed of the computer considering chess positions by how many chess positions including evaluation it considers per second.
I do not measure the speed of the computer by the number of floating point operations it could perform, as it performs no floating point operations at all while it is considering chess positions.

#1815
Those cloud engines have multiple processors.
Clock speed in gigahertz is not what counts.
For all computers in the world:
The speed for the purpose of solving chess is measured in nodes/second.
The speed for the purpose of forecasting the weather is measured in FLOPS.

By this logic - whoever purchases or rents the computer -
when contracting or buying ...  would have agreed to the deal without knowing the speed of the processor?
They're using it free so they don't know?

Analogy:  (relevant)
Race car financier/boss ...  "You know we've got a lot at stake in this race right?"
Race car expert on his staff:  "Yes I know that."
Financier/boss :  "How powerful is this new engine you want to use - in horsepower ?"
Expert:  "We don't use horsepower for that"
Boss:  " Whaat??  Well what do you use then?"
Expert:  "the guy pushing the engine says it'll do laps really fast!"
Boss:  "I want the strength of the engine in horsepower right now.  I want to know its typical rpm's and other specs too.  Right now."
Expert:  "Boss - if we use those units - it won't look good - we won't get as good performance !!"
Boss:  "You're saying we'll get better performance just by going by what this other guy says about 'laps' ?
What were you smoking last night?
You haven't been drinking again have you?"

Relevant Analogy Continued:
Expert:  "Boss - I can find out its horsepower but you shouldn't go by that!"
Boss:  "Find out right now."
2 minutes later:
"Its 50 horsepower."
"You didn't sign anything did you ??"
"Well ??"
Silence.  The 'expert' knows there's nothing he can say now to 'repair' the situation.  
He makes eye contact with his boss, pleadingly.  
The boss wonders what he'll say to his investors ...
But then he gets a lucky break - his lawyer happens to show up ...
"I couldn't help hearing ..."
Boss:  "tell me something good"
Lawyer:  "We can still get a real engine into the car from somebody else.  That other contract isn't final for another hour !
But you've gotta let me serve a formal rejection right now !"
The boss never felt so relieved in his life.  

He wonders though - why he ever ever listened to this 'expert' - while quickly rejecting the 50 HP 'engine' - getting a real engine -
and of course - the Expert takes a Walk.  A one-way walk.

#1819
It is rather otherwise:
Chess solving financier: how many chess positions can your cloud engine consider per second?
Expert: our computer can do floating point operations quite fast
Chess solving financier: solving chess does not need any floating point operations so I do not care how many floating point operations it can do.

Chess solving financier:  "Tell me the speed of the computer.
Right now.  No fancy footwork.
Use standard computer terms - not sales talk."
The salesman realizes though - that if he talks directly and honestly - then his sale isn't going through.
What does he do?
He dances.  He wriggles.  He bobs and weaves.
But the financier knows he - the financier isn't buying into the spiel.
He's just glad he didn't fall for it.
Whew !  That was close !

Are you mocking me? I know where the conclusion of that pdf is, thanks. I am asking you, for the sixth time if I am not mistaken, where do you read that the searched lines are just those in the proof tree? Is it clearer now? Answer this simple question honestly and I will answer you. One thing at a time.

#1822
In the other paper it says 10^7 in the tree and 10^7 considered per tree position

#1824
The true speed of available cloud chess engines is 10^9 nodes per second as per the reference quoted above.

It begins to look now - like we're going to get nothing but evasion regarding the true speed of the computers in the project.
Maybe @MARattigan (instead) will have a way to present the issue properly.
Without any lawyer talk.  
Even if the true speeds of the computers are presented properly in the articles - that would still mean that the 'proponent' here doesn't want to talk about that for some reason.  He doesn't know?  Doesn't get it?  Hasn't thought about it?  Maybe that'll stay like that.  
Its okay though.  Being evasive isn't the same as not being civil.  
Its not personal.  So he's doing fine.

#1826
Strongly solving is not feasible, weakly solving is feasible.
Strongly solving would go from the 7-men endgame table base towards the opening.
Weakly solving goes from the opening towards the 7-men endgame table base and requires far less positions to consider i.e. nanoseconds to calculate on a cloud engine.

Maybe that'll be the kind of response over and over again.

This could be part of the pattern of unwillingness to post the increases of times needed as the tablebases moved up from two kings to seven pieces on board.
But again - its okay. 
Obviously he has no obligation to provide any of that information. 
But if there's a desire to push a project - why the obvious silences about where its really critical?
Anyway - its nothing personal. 
All within the 'parameters' of the forum topic.
Maybe I should 'choose to like it'.  Its 'cute.'
At least - he has already conceded that true solving isn't feasible at this time - and won't be for a while.  If ever. 

And seven. Earlier you tried to use a paper to prove that only the square root of the search space has been checked, and there is no proof. Now you say "the other paper"... Which one? Page, line, or paragraph? Are you saying that indeed 10^14 nodes have been searched?

Seven times is quite a lot, maybe @playerafar is right about you.

Hi @haiaku !
By the 'logic' now being pushed -
that it 'doesn't matter' about the FLOPS or the Hertz or other basic speeds of the computers involved ...
then - chess should be solvable on an old Commodore 64 computer.
We can just assert that it does so many 'nodes per second' so its 'okay'
!!!!
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahah

#1828
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231216842_Checkers_Is_Solved
page 4 right column, §1-3, yes this paper says 10^14
Now you answer my 2 questions.

That's checkers not chess.
In the movie Training Day ... it was something like ...
"Son - its chess.  Not checkers."
@tygxc  you're doing fine.  Doing your thing.

Finally! And 10^14 is not the square root of 5*10^20.

Obviously I think that 1. d4 and 1. e4 are better than 1. a4 and 1. a3, otherwise I would play 1. a4 and 1. a3 all the time; and I think that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 is a stupid thing to do, if White wants at least a draw. But the problem is that to weakly solve chess this is simply not enough. People are not supposed to know about chess strategy, they are not supposed to know who was Capablanca. They want a proof, and: "Sveshnikov says that", "Capablanca says that", "all the damned chess players say that!" are not a scientific proof. Besides, to weakly solve chess, it's necessary to provide an optimal strategy for the players in reasonable time; we could not ask people to wait years to be provided with an optimal strategy for every silly move an opponent can play.

All that said, am I 100% sure that 1. a4 or 1. a3 are bad? No. So to be more precise, I can only say that I think my expected score as White with 1. d4 or 1. e4 is higher than my expected score with 1. a4 or 1. a3; and much higher than 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6.

Folks - I've been told it 'doesn't matter' about the speed of the computer in the project.  Whether its FLOPS or Hertz or whatever the clock speed.
So why not use the Good Old Commodore 64 ?

We only have to assert that it does the 'Nodes' !
Good Ole C64 !  After all it does a 'whopping' 1Mhz !! 
(oops - "speed doesn't matter")
Chess'll be solved very soon !!
(Just kidding.  All in fun!  )