Chess will never be solved, here's why

Of course. I said only a human.

Talking of AI, I have had some interesting experiences related to chess. I asked AIs to find sets of good exemplar games including PGNs in chosen opening variations . At first I believed them (typical example would be referring to the 1992 Fischer Spassky match game 3 and then giving the full score of the game),

As well as some red flags in the quality of play, in one of them I found a plain illegal PGN. One player left their king in check.

This is when I found that there was a lot of hallucination going on. The latest AIs are quite good (but not perfect) at generating plausible looking (but not very high quality) games, with occasional plain illegality, but they are often not real games at all, despite their descriptions. They even lie about games from matches as prominent as that Fischer-Spassky one.

Oh well...

No. Implication of draw also not being automatic on 50 move rule - that means there could be any number of repetitions (under basic rules).

Come on guys lets not get carried away and derail the whole thread... My assumption is that Dubrovnik is a young man to whom these AI tools may seem particularly attractive ,and its easy to get lost in them and lose your own thoughts. Its understandable... but lets try and keep these forums for intellectual human conversation.

That's rich coming from Octo and his misrepresentations and O-worship.

MARattigan and Elroch continue to be right as usual. Fact - not 'support'.
'O' cannot understand that additional information is needed besides the diagram?
That figures - but is his failure there intentional? It often is although not always clear that it is.
And Dubro versus C-Rat again. With D maintaining an edge as before. But that's not hard.
Especially with C-Rat being another worhsipper of 'O'. Its hard to get lower than that.
But maybe that's faked. A failed attempt by C to be annoying.
D maintaining his edge over C-Rat even having regressed recently from some good posts before the last few days.
------------------
Regarding the jargon of game theory - is it backward as jargons go?
Kind of.
But its inevitable that its going to be used.
Including to support the notions of 'nodes per second' in Euler diagrams which are not true graphs. Euler is pronounced Oiler apparently and Euler diagrams are kind of Oily.
But Euler is one of the greatest mathematicians apparently in at least the Top Ten if not much higher than that and Zermelo one of the greatest game theorists if not #1.
Euler is in the top three mathematicians probably.
Maybe the other two are Gauss and Newton.
------------------
Discussing in more detail with the AI how the greats communicated with each other.
From Occam to Einstein.
In the early going through the church and in Latin were the biggies.
With the printing press not even invented yet.
Greats in math/science/philo often communicated through university couriers - not all the greats were bigshots. For example Euler and LaGrange.
And it was a very big deal to get printed - even in Einstein's early days apparently?
So they handwrote to each other. 
Could be a 'problem' if they didn't understand each others handwriting or language.
Typewriters ... hmm.
As to which language was used the most (as Latin began to become a relic) not clear yet ...
But France was central.

HOW IS THERE ALMOST 20000 comments on this forum

Hi !
Try not to worry. Three years.
Under 7000 posts a year works out under 600 a month.
20 a day or so.
Under 10 minutes reading.
Quite humble. Innocent. Not guilty. 
But ... other sides to that.

... did you try ChatGPT on the cat and mouse game I mentioned?

the amount of downvotes on the original post is isane

So was the post.

tygxc could have posted exactly once. Lol.
----------------------
But his point about 'nodes per seconds' wasn't completely without merit.
He messed himself up on that though by trying to pretend that things like clock cycles per second and ops per second 'don't matter' to the solving.
For those who want to get some educational things out of the forum (in other words have their heads on straight although 'educational' isn't a must for that) -
the relevance of the forum subject to math is there. Including to great math.
The relevance of solving to good chessplaying is also underworked in the forum - so far.

What are you talking about? Please, provide one example of my worship of anybody you claim I indeed worship, or I kindly ask you to stop repeatedly asserting a baseless ad hominem. I dont agree with you in alot of subject matters, deal with it.

Heinlein is spinning in his grave somewhere ...

Basically @tygx's notion of "solve" was so imprecise that he was completely free to claim chess had already been solved, or that it be solved at any arbitrary time with more (but woefully inadequate) evidence.

Yes - but the point is he cast 'nodes per second' in a bad light by trashing computer cycles per second and ops per second.
To properly present 'nodes per second' - several steps seem necessary in a way even people here knowledgeable of Euler diagrams seem unwilling to do. Hurdles.
Although eventually MARattigan was willing to explain - 'no axes'.
MAR is in Switzerland.
Euler was in Switzerland. So was Bernoulli. Einstein. Von Neumann.
There's a joke about president Jimmy Carter talking about a country without problems ...
Switzerland. (yes its got problems too but they seem to manage them well) (history/geography not politics)
------------------
A chess position is a 'node'?
At how many nodes per second are supercomputers solving the opening position in chess?
One octillionth of an octillionth of a node per second?
Possibly when computer projects refer to 'nodes per second' they're referring to a tablebase project with eight pieces on the board and solving each such position has the advantage of most seven-piece and fewer situations related to it already having being solved (the exception being the very small percentage involving castling).

I'm more interested in the longest possible game without the 50 move rule, only drawing by repetition, how many moves into all the squares and possible positions get exhausted. An infinite chess game is impossible even if the rule was 100 fold repetition. Or 10,000 fold. If any repetition = draws, eventually the game will end, regardless of how many fold. There is no previous rule set that allows an infinite game.

EE is wrong again.
1. 75-Move Rule:
The 75-move rule, which automatically results in a draw if no capture or pawn move has been made after 75 moves, was officially introduced by FIDE in 1992 as part of the 1992 Laws of Chess. Prior to this, the 50-move rule was in place, and there was no automatic termination mechanism if neither player claimed a draw, leading to situations where games could theoretically continue indefinitely.
Year Introduced: 1992
The rule was created to address issues where players could avoid claiming a draw, allowing games to drag on indefinitely if no player moved pawns or captured pieces. This change ensured that the game would end after 75 moves if no progress was made, thus preventing an indefinite game.
2. Fivefold Repetition Rule:
The fivefold repetition rule, which automatically terminates the game as a draw if the same position occurs five times, was introduced much later. It was officially codified into the FIDE Laws of Chess in 2014. Before this, the threefold repetition rule was in place, but it required a player to claim the draw, and there was no automatic intervention by the arbiter.

Year Introduced: 2014
The fivefold repetition rule was introduced in response to the increasing complexity of chess in the digital age, where computers and engines could repeat positions multiple times, and players in tournaments needed an objective way to avoid endless repetitions.

Summary of Introductions:
75-move rule: 1992
Fivefold repetition rule: 2014
These rules were part of the broader effort by FIDE to streamline and modernize the game, ensuring that matches don’t drag on indefinitely due to player inaction or technical complexities in the chess engine era.
--------------------------------------
So prior to 1992 - throughout the previous history of chess - there was no rule to prevent infinite games of chess with infinite moves from happening.
Either the 75 move rule or the 5-fold rule would be sufficient to prevent infinite games.
But prior to 1992 - FIDE had no such rules. The 50 move and 3-fold rules were voluntary.
--------------------------
So for the entire history of chess rules prior to 1992 - the rules of chess allowed infinite games.
A stretch of time exceeding 400 years!
However - there were 'natural barriers' ... such as life span.
And also commonsense - which can cut in even with players infected with Bobby Fischerism.
Who's not going to claim the draw as they realize they want to leave the chessboard?
--------------------------
But try another idea: Chess clocks.
Eventually a player is going to fall asleep.
So will the other player if its his move.
Both flags down. Draw.
But ... games with no clocks.
Correspondence games.
Games with two man teams on each side.
Games with 'move control' time allotments allowing another two hours for each new batch of 40 moves.
--------------------

So there you have it.
EE wrong again.
Sets of rules allowing infinite games - for most of chess history.
But for over ten years now - 5 fold and 75 move rules putting a definite damper on that.
How about a chess game with no clocks with neither player required to keep a record of the moves?
In many park chess games you'll see two players - no clocks.
And whether with or without clocks its rare they're writing down moves.
----------------
I started with Grok but it timed out on me so it took me about two seconds to highlight and copy the session and paste it into chatgpt which completed the info.
Grok lets me do that too - but it'll only allow you to keep refreshing and continuing the session so many times. Sometimes its been about 20 times - at other times only two or three.
Chatgpt gets strict too but not as soon.
Even if I carefully zap the history - use hi-bit uninstaller junk files cleaner - and so on.
If you keep chess.com open and you close the Grok window - Brave won't self-delete all the history in that case.
Copilot on the other hand - seems to allow 'infinite sessions' but its the weakest of the three.

None of that needs a mathematical dissertation to prove though. If I remember correctly his proof involved something to do with a type of binary sequence being free of triplet repetitions or something, which I don't get how it relates to 3 fold repetition in chess. It's either one of two things. Either standard draw rules don't exist so positions can be endlessly repeated and that = infinite, and no need for a PHD to realize that lol, or at some point repetition is a draw whether it's 3, 5, or 10 fold, but with a finite number of pieces having a finite number of moves on a finite number of squares, repetition of any amount is inevitable. There is no in between.