Chess will never be solved, here's why

Seems like I am.

Answer to first is "no", but I see no relevance.

As I understood it Bláthy example was exactly applying. You'd better explain it again, because I think @Elroch understood it the same way.

Added further to my previous reply posts just now. By editing.
Your Blathy position doesn't have 'won position' elements.
Where/what is the won position in it that was 'added to'?
Not an explanation but rather 'resistance'.
---------------------
Idea: Start with positions that Syzygy has already solved and classified as wins.
Add material to the winning side.
But do a stalemate check. That's the 'algorithm'.
Not just if its stalemate - just make sure that the winning side can avoid stalemateing.
Which isn't a deep thing.
Note that it wouldn't be considering positions already stalemate - anyway.
Because its only considering positions that are already wins.
It just has to make sure that if and when its on move that it can avoid stalemating.
And things like perpetual check - with either side to move.
Pretty hard for the losing side to check - with Lone King.
------------------
I was mildly surprised when Grok indicated there was nothing published on this.
But Grok agreed with me that many would have thought of it already.
-----------------------------
Martin - if you want the Python script for this - and the API calls for asynchronous rollbacks and also the stack pointer considerations ... then maybe that could be a wait.
No full Monty breakfast nor Monty Python script available.

How about - 
Pretty hard for Lone King to perpetually check ...
and you can take that to the Swiss bank.

Hiiii

looks like Dubro is using an alt account?
Dubrovnik-1950 closed his own muted account apparently.
And seems has replaced it with a new AVRO-1938 account so as to beat the mute.

Oh really you think so? What ever asylum those messages are coming from, they shouldnt allow devices.

@MARattigan you're still talking about stuff I didn't say.
I put up a very simple example.
Did you see it?
K+R versus K. No stalemate positions because those would not be considered.
(Obviously the tablebase projects know which K + R positions are wins and which draws.)
So then somebody asks about K+R+R versus King - in other words adding another rook.
What is your issue with that Martin?
You can add as much material to the winning side as you like - add to the rook that is -
and as long as its not stalemate and the winning side can avoid stalemate when on move - then its still a win.
I wonder why you're not acknowledging this Martin.
-----------------------
We could start with K+Q versus K too.
In fact all wins for the side with extra material besides his King versus lone king -
and again - so you don't forget - Syzygy has already solved all such positions with up to seven pieces on board.
We don't have to start with book wins.
The tablebase has already generated a big base to start with.
------------------
Martin I think what is happening is you're looking at your own stuff instead of what I've been presenting to you.
The Blathy position is very irrelevant.
Compare it with positions that incorporate K+R versus King and then more material is added to the winning side - to any or every square - that doesn't produce stalemate.
-------------------
I admit I'm surprised you didn't get this. 
If I had been asked to guess in advance how fast you'd catch on - 
I would have picked 'about two seconds'. Elroch too.
Prediction: O and Octo will try to jump in and pretend its 'jumbled' or something like that.
In other words - pretend that K+R versus K is 'jumbled' but lets see if they can avoid being predictable.
---------------------------------

For those interested in using their own brains (AI assistance is fine, but not to the extent of delegating all thinking to the AI).

Reading the technical details about Schaefer's solution of checkers made me think of a relevant concept. This is to consider the notion of a modified version of chess, a one player game with an enhanced objectve.

The idea is the player is the agent trying to construct an optimal strategy and their objective is to do so with minimum computation. The agent has to pick strategy moves and these moves need to both achieve the optimal result and minimise computation.

There is a rather simple recursion associated with this because of the nature of an optimal strategy: in simple terms the computation needed is the sum of the computation needed for the positions reached by each legal move by the opponent.

It's best to think of this starting from terminating positions. A move that achieves the optimal result immediately is as good as it gets. If the optimal result is a draw, this would be a move that stalemates or one that reaches a position that reaches a position that has already been incorporated in the (tentative) strateg. Dealing with the latter entails no additional computational demand, because it already has to be dealt with.

Of course this extends to positions where we can force one of the above positions in 2 moves and so on.

This is just some incomplete thoughts, Schaeffer must have developed something like this more in order to use it in strategy construction. But I doubt he had what I would imagine here - some sort of machine learning algorithm to estimate the computational cost of each candidate move.

On another matter, can we have a consensus that fiction is spam here?

Your post #15468 put forward two distinct ideas.

A. The idea of computer projects seeking to solve chess by shortening the process with no further handling of positions that are obviously wins (corresponds to 'resign' in chess games) is a valid one.

and

B. I like this next idea:In all the solved tablebase positions (in other words all 7-piece or fewer legal chess positions) that have been found to be wins for white or for black - Each won position has a further algorithm run on it - where adding more pieces to the winning side in all ways that do not interfere with that side's win - is considered - but with no further evaluation - they are simply counted and added and a number of such is determined.

I didn't see anything to suggest the two ideas were connected.

The Bláthy position and the two immediately preceding positions I posted in my response and the positions I've subsequently posted are talking about A not B. You keep talking about B instead.

In fact in #15468 you say

tygxc took a little run at that but in a hopeless way.
Like for example wanting to reject all further analysis after e4 e5 Ba6.
It 'looks' valid. But the plus of a bishop isn't always enough to win.
Even with 'ceteris paribus' factored in.

The positions I posted are aimed at showing the plus of anything isn't always enough to win.
Even with 'ceteris paribus' factored in. 

In fact you're making exactly the same argument as @tygxc did. You have suggested some conditions to restrict the positions that can be assigned as won without further analysis, but they're too vague to implement in any such analysis without further detail and it's fairly apparent that any similar set of criteria that doesn't cover all the positions considered for skipping will probably result in some positions being erroneously assigned a win evaluation, either because they're drawn or won for the opposite side.

Can we first agree on A then we can discuss B, which is more of interest. My response to #15468 already commented on it, but further discussion is possible.

If you think I'm being slow on the uptake it's because your responses to my posts are talking about something unrelated to the subject of the posts you're responding to. And my posts have been talking about something you did say, namely A above.

If you reread my posts on the understanding that the topic is A, we can probably agree that A is dead. Can you confirm?

@AVRO-1938

Any chance of you getting into your own and Grok the world's Smartest AI's thick skulls that all versions of chess have a lot more than 10^43 positions and 10^120 games?

You're probably in a negative feedback loop. The more you post Gronk's duff figures, the more it's going to read your posts and believe it's right and the more it's going to repeat them to you and the more you're going to believe them and the more you'r going to post them ...

Solving This Board game is not the main issue.. Infact the less the number of errors made,, the more that particular game tends to be solved. Solved doesn't means That chess will have any formula like maths that if anyone applies it, that game will be winning for that particular one. If, something could have exist like that then there will be millions of formulas for each and every moves which is not possible for humans, And for computers, they are yet not that much strong enough,but still we can say few things like this about stockfish. People sucks in remembering mathematical formulas from a single chapter,, so how can a man remember so many formulas...If so exists. It's a game for human beings..Let's not put engines to compete with humans.. engines can help us for improving our strategy but it will never help us reach its epitome. Enjoy the game and respect the game from where it belongs...

they say goats & tigers got weakly solved. i wonder if chutes & ladders ever did ? (...nvm)

this is solved. Vote for bill/dorito for president of OTF. Hes an amazing leader, have you seen the Weirdmageddon episodes. Well, when you vote for him, you'll see SOOOOOO many benefits.
1. He's chill and doesn't put restricyions
2. hes a triangle
3. The best deal maker in all of history
4. Nice and funny
5. you can summon him whenever u want. need help? Triangulum, entangulum, meteforis, dominus ventium, meteforis venetisa.

According to game theory there are three situations among all legal chess positions:
1) A strategy is available for white to force a win for white.
2) A strategy is available for black to force a win for black.
3) A strategy is available for white - or for black - to force a draw.
------------------------
@MARattigan -
looks like you're not interested in this idea of adding to established won positions - 
thereby 
1) avoiding 'game tree' in either direction
2) avoiding very quickly having to brute-solve gazillions of positions simply by only establishing there's no stalemate or other draw possibility and therefore the new position is also won and 'case closed'.
You're 'not interested' but that's okay. Fine.
Want to concern about 'exactly what was said'?
There's an alternative to that below.
-----------------------
Some might not catch on to an additional factor - but that's okay too.
that for the third 'game situation' - the idea of 'very shortened algorithm for positions created by adding material to the position (not retrograde moves) doesn't work in that case of either side 'having a strategy to force a draw' (instead of a win) - whereas it does work for the first two.
--------------------
Two reasons for it not working for situation 3 
because in such 'force a draw is available' positions perhaps a win could be forced instead - and that has to be determined first - because then the draw factor would be superfluous!
and second reason - because the side that can force the draw because that side is on move (part of defining the position) could elect to 'play for the win' instead ...
'available strategy to force a draw' just doesn't contain as much simpicity no matter how much 'intrinsic' simplicity it has.
'intrinsic' doesn't cut it.
Becaise of 'the bigger picture'.
----------------
For those who react with 'Whaaattt? What is that?' - the irony is that that's part of 'getting it' - that's the point.
Game situation 3 just doesn't have the neatness Game situations 1 and 2 have.
Is that 'bad use' of the phrase 'game situation'?
Was I supposed to say 'game theoretic value' instead?
--------------------
its not rocket science ...
White having at least one option to force a win and black having at least one option to force a win (they're exclusive of each other) ....
those first two of the three game situations each take care of themselves.
--------------------
But the other situation - where either side has an option to force a draw (its really two situations but in game theory they express it as one - maybe because the resulting game score is the same for each of the two players in both of those two situations- whereas in the first two situations the scores differ (even though 'zero sum' again.) - they differ because White winning is different from black winning. 
Whereas with either side forcing a draw the result is the same for both players unlike in the first two cases.)
But overall result: the 'can force a draw' situation does not take care of itself (unlike the first two situations) because it does not exclude the first two situations.
--------------------------
Again:
According to game theory there are three situations among all legal chess positions:
1) A strategy is available for white to force a win for white.
2) A strategy is available for black to force a win for black.
3) A strategy is available for white - or for black - to force a draw.
---------------------
Those three situations look extremely neat and simple and complete.
Yes?
Neat and simple yes.
Complete - no. 
For multiple reasons. 
One being - it isn't always known which is of the three situations applies so when that's the case then for the purpose of choice - you've already got at least a fourth situation.
Another being that situations 1 and 2 each exclude the other and each exclude situation 3 also.
But situation 3 does not exclude the other two.
You could call it 'assymetry'.
--------------
Implication: In situation 3 (which Martin so far refuses to distinguish from situations 1 and 2 but he's a good man nonetheless but that's a different subject) -
in situation 3 - you can't 'shorten the algorithm' for other positions created by adding material to situation 3 positions - because situation 3 wasn't/isn't taking care of itself to start with.
-----------------------------
Gobbledygook?
No. Because its what chessplayers deal with every game they play!
Year in year out.
Century in - century out.
Everybody knows that when you're forcing a win that takes care of itself.
But mostly everybody also knows too that in positions where you've got an option to force a draw that players often prefer to play on for a win instead,
especially if you've got an advantage on the board. Or on the clock. Or both.
Happens constantly !!
You know it! (the sunglasses smiley below is meant as a big hint - that its not about me.)
You see - you know it. Reality. (Australia exists too - but I hear there are doubters of that ... and the same people claim the earth is flat too)
But - the earth is Round - and its your Apple. So eat it. The flatters don't get it.
😎

I asked Grok 3, claimed by Elon Musk (and his fans?) to be the world's smartest AI, about people who post the outputs of AIs without any critical thinking by themself. The response was rather lengthy, but here are the conclusions, which should serve as advice for anyone who wishes to use AI output:

<< Conclusion and Recommendations

if a apple izza city then lemme take a bite ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElN_4vUvTPs

Posting AI-generated quotes unthinkingly differs from posting Wikipedia quotes and google quotes unthinkinly - 'how'?
Suggestion: its the same animal.
The longer the quotes the more it might be 'concerning' but this isn't to be blamed on AI.
And quoting without quote marks is yet another problem to Not be blamed on AI.
------------------
Why do many want to blame AI for this?
Its not AIs fault.
-----------------
But 'the situation' is that AI is becoming hugely popular -
'like Totally. I mean .. Dudesky - Its like Totally. Like man - Totally. Like.'
Its that popularity (the popularity is deserved) that is causing these new situations ...
but good news:
people using the permissiveness of chess.com software to post without limit -
well that's not a new thing -
but that 'old problem' gets handled in the same ways as before.
I skipped reading Dubrovnik/Avro's posts that he made a few hours ago.
Skipped them.
They're water under the bridge.
Members take care of their end their way. Including with their block buttons.
 And if the moderators want to do something about Dubro making new accounts and they can then they probably will.
🍎