Chess will never be solved, here's why

And I've said before that @MARattigan makes the best posts here.
I believe that continues to be true.
But there's perhaps only one person here (not I) who as usual will then in his deluded way assert that that implies some kind of 'superiority' or 'deference'.  He's obsessed with his imagery about same.

Regarding the idea that the number of moves elapsed in the 50 move rule or repetition rule - might affect strategy and therefore solution of a position ...  isn't invalid.
Perhaps progress will be made if and when its established that nobody has an argument to prove to the contrary.  
But there are still arguments to indicate that those considerations are sidelines.
For example:  if you've got a 50 move count going - doesn't that mean that the position to kick off the 50 at the beginning of the count - is Known?  Or should be? 
Couldn't that mean that the main issue is to solve that position?
This connects up with the definition of solving as to whether its binary A or B or not - as in several outcomes of 'solving' instead.
I suggest the 'several outcomes' is more valid.
Meaning that solving a position means making a report on its issues.
Not just whether checkmate is available or not.

Similiar with repetition of position.
What position is being repeated ?
Could/should the computer report on every single position in chess
that "well we could have had this position before - so therefore we have to regard every position as two positions - on that."
See how ridiculous that gets ?
How about a position with only black's knight at c6 as off its original square ?
Is that legal?  Sure it is !
1) Nf3 Nc6 2) Ng1.  And there you are.
So now black plays Nb8.   !!!
The computer must now regard the opening position as 'two positions' because there might already have been two-fold repetition ??

#2296
"I accept your premise that this position is not the solution to chess."
++ It goes further than that.
All proof games of all 538 positions Tromp found legal have an accuracy near 0%. That means that the vast majority of Tromp's 10^44 legal positions form no part of the solution of chess.

The real number of sensible and legal positions lies between 10^38 and 10^32.
That would be the number needed to investigate for strongly solving chess.
For weakly solving chess a far smaller number of relevant, reachable, sensible and legal positions need investigating.

#2291

"(i) If you add moves and/or change the move order some people might say that changes something by definition." ++ But the accuracy stays near 0%.

"(ii) You don't prove the accuracy is near 0." ++ I leave that for you to verify.

(iii) You don't prove if you add some moves and/or change the move order, the accuracy stays near 0%. ++ Just try and see for yourself.

"I'm sure as the World's strongest grandmaster it won't take you long."
++ I am no grandmaster, I never said that.

"For weakly solving chess a far smaller number of relevant, reachable, sensible and legal positions need investigating."
But arbitrary capricious invalid ways of dismissing positions are met with disagreement.
And self-convictions of 'knowing more' without any quality of knowledge are not going to 'vindicate Sveshnikov' except in the imagination.
And - is that even the real goal ?

There was a very great scientist - Sigmund Freud - who argued for the existence of 'the unconcious mind'.
A mind in which we don't always know - what is going on.
And never know - completely what is going on in it.
A mind that often controls - determines - decides.
But many deny this.  
And many might misinterpret the greatness of scientists like Freud and Einstein - feeling that they're 'personally greater'.  'Superior'.
Hitler felt he was 'superior'.  Didn't work out so well.
There's a school of thought that says no person is 'greater' than another - unless one chooses to have it that way.

I doubt very much that the 'real agenda' is to vindicate Sveshnikov.
Something very different going on here.   
Perhaps - whoever should instead concentrate on his feelings of 'knowing more'.

Paradox in chess (abounds) and in 'solving' chess (also abounds).
I've suggested that the 50 move rule and repetition rule are sidelines compared to the issue of whether forced checkmate is available or not.
I went into that a few posts ago.
But that in turn does not mean that that higher issue of whether forced checkmate is available or not - is a binary A or B be-all or end-all of the business of 'solving' chess.
Or thee end-all of same.  It might appear to be.  But it isn't.
There's too many significantly different outcomes to positions.
Especially when the limitations of today's computers are factored in.

#2289

"Both those numbers (10⁹ and 10⁷) were referred to the proof size, not the number of nodes searched and I think you know it well now as before."
++ No, I did not know. From the first paper I interpreted 10^9 of 10^18 searched i.e. exactly the square root. The second, later paper says 10^7 nodes in the proof tree and each node needing 10^7 positions.

"And is it impossible that's not enough to make it understandable, not only to the less gifted?"
++ I patiently try, but some seem unable or unwilling to understand.
I explained x times why there are less relevant, reachable, sensible, and legal positions than legal positions, but the erroneous 10^44 keeps turning up.
I explained x times why weakly solving chess needs less positions than strongly solving chess, but people keep sticking to millions of years based on strongly solving chess.

"You stil put many things together, as if they were questionable the same."
++ I have been called crackpot, autist, narcissist, liar... I have been said to understand nothing about mathematics, nothing about computers, to have zero credibility... People put forward utter nonsense and call that refuting or debunking...

"You simply do not accept that basically all the others may have the same opinion about your theories" ++ I am outnumbered, that does not make me wrong.

"you exclude the possibility that your reasoning may be impossible to understand for anyone."
++ I may be not that good at making myself understood.

"I have been outplayed at chess by people who had far less scientific education"
++ I believe that. At a certain point our national champion was a butcher.

"You really think you "beat" all the others here at science, which is about objectivity"
++ I know about my own scientific background and as for the others I infer it from what they write.

"And for sure I do not see this thread as a contest; you do"
++ No, I do not at all. I find it a fascinating subject and I like to think and write about it. Some others make it a contest and even boast they are top debaters. I certainly am not.

"you behave like an unscrupulous lawyer: first the win, then the truth."
++ No, not at all. I do not sling insults. I do not troll. I do not accuse. I do not gang up "well said XYZ"

"you think you can use your supposedly better than ours evaluation function, to understand how much of the search space can be cut down"
++ No, I do not have any better evaluation function, I do not believe in evaluation functions, only in deep calculation. I do however advocate common sense and heuristics.

"preventing any further search in that excluded part, in order to speed up the process."
++ Yes: no need to investigate 1 a4, or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, or 1 e4 c5 after 1 e4 e5 is already proven to draw.

"AFAIK no one out there (not only in this thread) supports your approach, because it is fallacious by faulty generalization." ++ It is schocking that people see a need to investigate 1 a4, or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, or 1 e4 c5 after 1 e4 e5 is already proven to draw. Are you one of those?

#2293

"Apparently you don't understand how computers work."
++ It has been a long time since I have programmed any computer. In 1978 I wrote a chess program in Fortran 4 with Hollerith punch cards and ran it on a Siemens 4004 mainframe.

"If you give the system a set of rules to apply to "eliminate" non-sensible positions, the act of evaluating each position and checking the criteria you have set is a significant portion of the effort you think that you are avoiding."
++ No, I do not give any rule to eliminate non-sensible positions. The illegal, non-sensible, non reachable, non relevant positions just do not turn up during weakly soving chess.   

"Whether you pre-parse all this and de-couple it from the actual evaluation of the sensible positions make little difference"
++ No, I do not pre-parse or parse I do not even evaluate, I only calculate from the 26-men tabiya towards the 7-men endgame table base.

"10^44.5 unique positions"
++ 10^44 legal positions, far less sensible (10^38 - 10^32), far less reachable (10^18), 10x less relevant (10^17)

"you are left evaluating unique positions, not valid game paths"
++ No, I follow relatively few valid game paths and visit unique positions all automatically legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant and retrieve the absolute evaluation draw / win / loss from the table base. I do not visit positions because they are legal, sensible, reachable and relevant, on the contrary: they are legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant because they are visited during weakly solving. The few game paths are just lines from the 26-men tabiya towards the 7-men endgame table base that connect the visited nodes.

I am not really concerned if you don't like the Shannon Number.  Unlike, say, Kasparov's purported 180+ IQ, the Shannon Number was the accepted estimate for decades.  So listing the progression from 10^120 to 10^44.5 followed by the bogus cuts to 10^36 and 10^17 holds up well, because that's exactly how this has progressed historically .

That's not weakly solving chess.  That's just GIGO.

Lots of claims - while avoiding the issues of computer speeds -
sidestepping with 'nodes per second' - still not grasping about the subjectivity of 'reasonableness of moves' while mathematics demands objectivity plus quality of reasoning - not 'know more'.
The two of them could talk to each other - in theory.
But about 'feelings of superiority' as subject.  Identify with each other.
Get in touch with 'the inner self'.  Use what they have in common.

woah cant believe this is still on

Hi !  Welcome to the forum !
Do you have a theory as to what the 'finale' might look like ?
Scenarios ?   
As to what the 'end of discussion' would look like in the forum?
The subject of 'solving' chess connects up with regular chess much more than people might think.
There's over 50,000 tactics puzzles on the website.
That's right.  50,,000 plus.  Each with its own discussion forum.  Yes !
Millions of members.  Trying to 'solve'.
Many millions (hundreds of millions - probably billions now) of attempts on the puzzles - each player trying to 'solve'.  'Solving' and 'how to solve' being central issues.
There's a lot of 'solve' in chess.  Its like - a commodity.  Or privilege.

uh no i just came in as i still follow this thread but i am not going to be involved

Quoting for posterity.

Not sure it can compete with 'pretty sure I know more' by 'the other guy'.
Maybe they need to 'peer review' each other.

#2337
"That's not weakly solving chess."
++ It is. That is how Checkers and Losing Chess have been solved.

One's argument: "I know more ..."
the other: "but my chess rating (uh oh he's lower) and IQ ..."
Result - they're both wrong - and others display much more accuracy.

Speaking of ratings - a guy who just posted here a few minutes ago - he's rated in the 2400's.  Just mentioning.  But he's not like either of those two.

Lasker - Bottvinnik - Euwe ... didn't let the game beat them.
Fischer - it didn't work out so well ...

I don't mind the Shannon number as long as it refers to what Shannon meant it represent.

I don't know who "accepted" it as an estimate of the number of legal games. Presumably someone who hadn't read Shannon's paper properly. "Accepted" is not necessarily the same as "correct".

The fact is it's out on a scale similar to @tygxc's number of legal positions..

And apart from that it's now infinite under basic rules, (but not for decades - only since 2017).

There is no progression from 10^120 to 10^44.5. Tromp doesn't use Shannon's number.

It is simply misinformation and antisocial to propagate it. It's already been quoted at least three times in this thread alone as the number of legal games.

But whether or not forced checkmate is available in a game (and what moves achieve it) depends on whether or not the rules are in force in many cases.

So how can the former be sidelines and the latter not?

Restating what you're meant to prove and inviting me to prove it myself don't meet the challenge.

I hope (possibly forlornly) that you can understand that.

The challenge was to prove or convincingly demonstrate that a single position in Tromp's sample could not be reached by a game with >50% accuracy.

You haven't even managed the latter for the game you actually suggest for the position you actually suggest. You have rather a long way to go.

(It's not relevant to the topic, of course, because most of the play you will generate with your proposed method won't have an accuracy >50% anyway and accuracy is not a requirement for a solution - it's just for interest.)