Chess will never be solved, here's why

I can believe it. The only problem is that some of those claims are not mere opinions, they are actually disinformation. That's not enough for reporting, I'm afraid, but for sure they are offensive... to our intelligence .

That's probably because you don't know your arse from your elbow.

You almost certainly gave it a FEN with ply count 0 instead of 100, because you have a total lack of comprehension of how the rules affect either SF14 or the game results and you don't take any notice or what people post for you.

From earlier:
"One thing is abundantly clear.  You lack the objectivity to ever be trusted with the scientific method, and have zero hope of ever being part of an actual solution for chess .  You are driving everything from the 5 year conclusion tossed out as an offhand comment by a deceased GM, and your hypotheses are all contorted to fit this reality you have decided upon in advance."

Apparently. 
And he's investing a tremendous tremendous effort to so contort.
But one of those points can be qualified.
This one:
"You lack the objectivity to ever be trusted with the scientific method"

Could be qualified this way:
Whatever substantial degree of objectivity he possesses - if he does - he's not applying it Here to any degree regarding these chess solving subjects.
By putting it that way - it more applies to his posts than he himself.
How does he get away with it?
Because he avoids personally attacking.
Its similiar with the people pushing flat earth and 'viruses don't spread diseases' nonsense on this website ...  they push their silliness but are careful not to violate TOS (terms of service of chess.com) -
so - they get away with it.

And by the way - there's now a new red Exclam report button within every post.
I tried it out just now.  In another forum.
When you hit that button - it gives you a popup menu to qualify your report.
So I ticked the 'spam' option on the posts that keep turning up about 'playing for cash on another website' from the same person over and over again.
Yes I was careful just now not to also spam by Not repeating the name of the spammed website !  

#2143
Of course I gave the position as it is, with ply count 0 to start with. There is no point in discussing a position with circumstances close to the 50-moves rule that do not happen.
I still challenge you to show me one grandmaster game or ICCF game where the 50 moves rule was invoked before the 7-men table base was hit.
I bet there is none, but I cannot prove the non existence of such a game.

#2142
I am the only one providing information on the subject of solving chess and backing it up with facts and figures.
Apparently you know no great deal about mathematics. That is fine, no problem, but it is not fine that you accuse me of lying because you do not understand.

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•   
•   
•   
•   
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  hi
•    
•  

Reported Ifemo for spamming (and he/she/they have done it at least a half dozen times now).  More reports would be speed the process of dumping this miscreant.

I gave the new red exclam button - a workout just now - regarding the obvious spam in post 2148. 
Yes - the button to report that is within its own post at top right of the post where the Quote and Edit buttons are.
Chess.com is going to get a lot red button hits from thousands of members in the days ahead.
Its possible that the reports with the most hits will get priority.

I'll just add - that the new button is Great. 
Takes under ten seconds to hit the red exclam ' ! ' (but on the post being reported) - then dot the popup menu whether by 'spam' or whatever) and then the green Report button.  E voila !  Done !

#2140
"a) What's the depth of the game tree?"
++ Not all branches of a tree are equally long.
I looked through the ongoing ICCF world championship games.
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
The longest game lasted 102 moves and ended in a perpetual check, i.e. a forced 3-fold repetition of moves.
The shortest game lasted 16 moves, a draw agreed presumably for tournament standings
On average 39 moves were played, standard deviation is 14 moves.
So typical branches are between 25 and 53 moves from the initial position to the draw.
Not one single game was drawn by the 50-moves rule. 
Most games were drawn by agreement, e.g. because of an opposite color bishop's ending or a symmetrical rook ending with equal pawns.
18 games were drawn by 3-fold repetition.
11 games were drawn by reaching a 7-men endgame table base draw, the shortest in 31 moves and the longest in 71 moves.

Lie 5. Basically all the others have provided informations on solving chess and have backed them with facts and figures, as you like to say like a mantra, and anyone who cares to read the posts on this thread can verify that by herself. Providing more facts, and more inaccuracies too (to use an euphemism), and link them with analogical more than logical thinking does not make you any better. If you are proven to be the only one about something, it is in having such an inflated ego.

I was about to say the same about you, but I prefer to refrain from using arguments like "mine is bigger than yours", as it can be biasing. Apparently, though, none here but you knows a great deal about mathematics, since they reject most of your figures.

About your objectivity and honesty, then, maybe you want to comment this excerpt from the very paper on checkers you cited so much:

"With checkers done, the obvious question is whether chess is solvable. Checkers has roughly the square root of the number of positions in chess (somewhere in the 10⁴⁰ - 10⁵⁰ range). Given the effort required to solve checkers, chess will remain unsolved for a long time, barring the invention of new technology."¹

But surely you know about computer science and mathematics more than Schaeffer and the others, too.

¹ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231216842_Checkers_Is_Solved page 4 last paragraph.

Is all this pingpong regarding responding to @tygxc ...
actually preventing the forum from discussing both strong solving and its difficulties - and alternative chess projects for the supercomputers and engines ?
Maybe - maybe not.  
Anyway - he can keep proclaiming week in and week out that he copied figures from somebody else.  Accuse others of not doing so  - while they use his own figures to challenge and expose the illogics ...  
That could be expected. 
And that will probably occupy 80% of postings here.

@Elroch just mentioned the word 'inductive'.
When I was taught math - mathematical 'induction' was introduced to me.
Included.
It went (maybe still does) something like this:
(I may not remember precisely.  Yes it can be checked.)

And its Rigorous - very strict and very Algebraic ... like math usually is.

First you prove mathematically that an equation is valid for a single constant K.
But one could test that with an actual numerical value of K.
Then you prove it for an algebraic constant K.
Then you prove it - for (K + 1).  Again - mathematically.  Very strictly.
Algebraically.   Not 'extrapolating'.
Rigorously.  Airtight.  No leaks.  No loose ends. 
No 'fuzzy stuff' (a no no in math).
And it did not include 'zeroes' at the ends - or division by zero.
Which is something special.

Then you can rewrite (K+1) as a new constant.  Call it C.
Then you have the process under way.
Induction (but with very Strict mathematics) -
that the process could be extended indefinitely to ever-increasing values of the 'constant' you are applying to the 'pure mathematics' equation.

But that is not what @tygxc is doing.  He's doing something else.

#2152

About your objectivity and honesty, then, maybe you want to comment this excerpt from the very paper on checkers you cited so much:

"With checkers done, the obvious question is whether chess is solvable. Checkers has roughly the square root of the number of positions in chess (somewhere in the 10⁴⁰ - 10⁵⁰ range). Given the effort required to solve checkers, chess will remain unsolved for a long time, barring the invention of new technology."

That was in 2007. The 10^40 - 10^50 range is no longer valid.
The papers by Tromp (10^44) and Gourion (10^37) are from 2021.
In those 15 years also computers have become faster and chess engines better, now 10^9 nodes/s.
Also progress has been made on the 7-men endgame table bases.
Most of the effort of Schaeffer was related to building his endgame table base.

Schaeffer himself also said:
”The one thing I’ve learned in all of this is to never underestimate the advances in technology”
https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/publications/ai_publications/checksolved.pdf 
final line

That's not a retraction and improvements in these 15 years are not a breakthrough. Cloud computing is nothing so special, but you can notify him of these advances, had he missed them.

I find myself agreeing with that post by @haiaku 
'Lie 5' means there were four other lies by ...  ??
@tygxc claiming he is the 'only one' providing facts and figures ??
Lol !!   .....     
I am referring to posts here.  As opposed to being 'personal'.

I am numbering them from post #2140, but beware for future reference, because I think post numbers change if someone deletes one or more of them.

Usually - at a moment of confrontation like this -
@tygxc might 'bob and weave'.  Post another series of figures perhaps.
I know of another person like this.  But much more sophisticated (no not anybody posting here - no not named).  Very fancy footwork.