Chess will never be solved, here's why

Quoting

I think you have something confused. This would mean that there is no tendency for error pairs at all, the opposite would be true in fact.

as

there is no tendency for error pairs at all

certainly smacks of deliberate misrepresentation.

Had @tygxc bothered to look at the sample SFvSF games I posted for him where I went to the trouble of marking the blunders he would see that "error" pairs are something typical of SFvSF play also.

basically tygxc's entire platform is based on false assumptions, and he tries to layer it with fallacious distractions. people'cant help but point out the flaws in his distractions, so tygxc tries to layer even more fallacious distractions, which people cant help but point out. eventually, when the discussion gets esoteric to the point that tygxc cannot follow, he starts taking people out of context and asserting his initial false assumptions.

tygxc tries to quote articles as if its him doing the research.
Which as we know - wouldn't work.
But in reading through the recent posts which have the usual high quality except for tygxc's posts ...
ideas:
The issue of how engines are programmed to modify their processing when the engine gets to
1) it appears the opponent made a mistake
2) it appears the opponent Might have made a mistake
3) time to play for a win
4) time to play for a draw
5) not clear whether to play for a win or a draw.
The 114 consecutive ICCF draws look very very suspect. Its like the engines were programmed to play for draws instead of for wins. Regardless of how their human guide might have made some moves otherwise.

To compute all positions in chess (10^120) it would take millions of years. Would be solved one day but Earth would have gone by several changes by then. And only if there are humans or robots, then chess can be solved else not.

10^120 games would take trillions of years or much more than that.
But the number of possible legal positions is bounded by a number over 10^44.
Which is still a daunting and prohibitive number.
You can start generating these numbers yourself simply by considering that a chessboard square can only have 13 states.
So right away you get a first upper bound of 13^64.
But you can rapidly start cutting that down by arguing an upper bound for the two Kings of 64 x 60 times 11^62 for the other pieces.
It gets progressively harder but you can cut that down further without sophisticated math.
And get more accurate by making three sets of numbers for whether at least one King is on a corner square or edge square or midboard square.
--------------------------------------------------
You can factor in the number of ways 32 squares must be empty since there's only a max of 32 pieces.
You can factor in that pawns can only be on 48 squares.
Eventually a number between 10^44 and 10^45 is arrived at.
With current technology you could take trillions of years to try to table-base solve all of those and you're not going to get there.

@12055

"all positions in chess (10^120) "
++ Chess has 10^44 legal positions, of which 10^37 without promotions to pieces not previously captured, 10^38 without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured, 10^34 that could result from optimal play by both sides and 10^17 relevant to weakly solving Chess.

"millions of years" ++ Weakly solving Chess is now ongoing in 2 years.

@12052

"It went from Solving chess, best and perfect run draws, to the possible amount of winning moves in an ICCF comp, to a SFvSF practical game."

++ The ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals (17 ICCF (grand)masters with each 2 servers of 90 million positions/s at 5 days/move is now weakly solving Chess: 114 draws out of 114 games.

ah yes tygxc, ignore the 4 people repeatedly pointing out your previous delusions in explicit detail and instead repeat your fantasy to new users to try to mislead them. How can you look yourself in the mirror?

there isnt even anything political about this topic, there is literally no reason for you to be struggling to accept basic logic. There is literally nobody who falls for your delusions for more than a couple interactions.

@12048

"Tromp counts basic rules positions not competition rules positions."
++ There are only positions, and competition rule 9.2.3 defines it.
You confuse positions and nodes. The node is a position + history + provisional heuristic evaluation. The history takes care of the 3-fold repetition rule and the 50-moves rule.

"factor of two to account for side to move is too high, but I would suggest by very little"
++ Yes, likewise the factor 1/2 for positions to nodes is a bit off too.
Generally 1 diagram = 2 positions = 1 node

"3.8521...e37 x 10.9456 = 4.2163...e38."
++ 3.8521E37 is an upper bound, the estimate is 3E37, see page 9

"What factor of 1/2 for diagrams to nodes?"

Here are 2 diagrams, 4 positions, 2 nodes.

"planning to use SF"
++ No. ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers each 90 million positions/s during 5 days/move.

"I don't think SF exploits that symmetry in any way" ++ No, but the up/down symmetrical position does not happen. If it were to occur, the human would recognise it.

"SF is designed to play competition rules chess." ++ ICCF (grand)masters use it for analysis.

"That is a diagram and a limited amount of history"
++ And a provisional heuristic evaluation, together a node.
The engine recognises the 3-fold repetition of a FEN or the 50-moves rule from the PGN.

"you seem to have omitted the case of two queens of the same colour"
++ Yes, 3 queens vs. 1 queen makes no sense.
That is why the /2 is there in addition to the /4 to select Q only and omit R, B, N.

"Where's the output?" ++ The core output are the 114 ICCF WC Finals draws.
The more extensive output are the records both ICCF (grand)masters kept.
'I maintain both manual and electronic records. When the move is received, I note the exact time, my candidate moves, records of all actions taken, and their results.' - Edwards

"If someone wants to know what moves to play"
++ Follow an ICCF WC Finals draw for as long as possible,
then switch to ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 positions/s, average 5 days/ply

"if as Black I play 1...e5 against 1.e4 and my opponent plays 2.Ba6 and I want to know what move to play, your solution tells me, Play ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 positions/s, 5 days/ply"
++ Yes, though for 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, lesser hardware and less time/move will suffice.

"different rules" ++ ICCF is more decisive than FIDE,
so a weak solution of chess per ICCF is a fortiori a weak solution per FIDE.

To be fair, @tygxc has provided a great deal of weak reasoning. In fact I would call it ultra-weak reasoning.

but he sure hijacked u guys...ur all jumping thru hoops cuzza him...LOLOL !!

Masterful.

no

It looks like Elroch might have got accidentally robo-muted somehow.
So his posts and his two science forums have disappeared temporarily.
Hopefully he'll be back very shortly in which case his posts and forums will re-appear.

no

@Elroch
Glad to see you're back. And quickly.

but.. why?

There are like 9999999...9999999 (120 9's) possible chess positions. This isn't even considering multiple ways to reach the exact same position! Fun fact: If you had a hallway having every possible chess game, that hallway would reach the "unobservable universe". Meanwhile people from the year 45360: How is chess still not solved?!?! That game is like 50000 years old!

Not quite right.
Your numbers more pertain to possible games than positions.
The actual number of possible chess positions is somewhere between 10^44 and 10^45 positions.
But that's still far more than enough to make solving chess impossible for today's computers.
Unless they had many trillions of years available.
But they will be replaced soon by newer computers which would still take too many trillions of years.
------------------------
Too bad that today's computers also can't do much about the continuing and increasing damage to the earth's atmosphere and weather by ongoing manmade global warming.
What Can today's computers do that is super-great?
They probably figure in things like MRI machines.
Various other medical applications.
Printers.
Aircraft design and operation. Navigation generally.
Greatly increased precision and quality in manufacturing.
Robotic automation increasing production in factories and thereby greatly improving the work duties and health of factory workers and other workers.
Got to be quite a longer list ...