True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

Imagine solved chess solutions in todays opening three - for each move the three updates with the correct continuation.

Is it possible for us to speculate what kind of space storage required for such a big data number?

Previous pages have already done so.

There are on the order of 10^40 legal positions and 10^120 unique games.

If each legal position took 1 bit, and we divided the data into common use flash drive storage devices, then (rough calculation here) the mass of such devices stored in one place would be more than enough to create a black hole... and all that infomation would be lost to us

Recently readed that 1 petabyte hard drives (aka 1000 TB) isn't expected to become mainstream until around 2020.

By 2020 we may have passed 8 or 9-men tablebases.

8-men is estimated to store about 1 petabyte of storage.

The problem with tablebases being it goes up exponentially for each added "man."  Slap an exponent on a petabyte and increment it a few times and very quickly you get an absurd amount of information.  Just to the 2nd power and you already have to abandon the greek prefixes.

How could anything be "mostly totally useless".  And, we have been trying to debate this topic logically...geez!

If chess is ever solved, it will be a technological achievement.  The fact that humans may not be able to duplicate (or comprehend) a solution would not change its validity.

"Mostly totally" may be a funny combo.  I elaborated in the part you didn't quote.

I agree it would be an achievement.  Just that it woudln't change the day to day of the chess playing community.

If you're not willing to put in the work you should stop playing chess.

I didn't misquote you, and it is not a "funny combo".  It is an impossibility.  Something cannot be "mostly totally" anything.  Can it, wafflemaster?

After all, it has been argued that anything but an exhaustive, "strong solution" is inadequate.  Now, you are telling us that a solution "would mostly be probably useless"?

It's just another example of being loose with the facts as long as they support your side.  Mostly, no, totally!

Using a slightly contradictory colloqialism isn't at all the same thing as being loose with the facts, but since you're levying the accusation, and you said it was "just another example" where else was he "loose with the facts"?  (Or are you just being loose with the facts yourself?)

And by the way, something can be mostly totally useless: it can be totally useless most of the time, for example.

It doesn't take much imagination to see how "mostly totally" could be used in a sentence.  In fact I'd say it takes more imagination to argue that it doesn't make sense in a sentence.

An exhaustive solution may be necessary but the characterization of that exhaustive solution can be anything ranging from worthless, to totally useful, to mostly-totally-sort-of useful

If you claim the characterization of an exhaustive solution as "mostly totally" is a self defeating contradiction then it's illogical to allege I would use it knowingly with the intent to fallaciously support my side.  At worst I was just ignorent.

Also, because it's just a characterization, I don't think you can describe it as being loose with facts.

That is correct. Using the words "mostly totally" has nothing to do with being loose with the facts.  It is a characterization.  Just as when I said 98%  of chess masters will tell you something--the 98% is a characterization or in this case an estimate.  It is also not being loose with the facts.

98% is a quantification, not a characterization, and as long as you can actually support the figure is not being loose with the facts.

Pelikan  your comment about the Scandinavian is rather funny!

If you read this thread from the beginning - you really don't want to, trust me, but if you did...you would see that there are a few people here who constantly insist on defining the terms, acting as arbiter of what arguments are strong or weak and ultimately explain to us mere mortals what is wrong or "right".

I just find it humorous when one points out an obvious point - like mostly totally doesn't make sense - that they are incapable of saying, yeah, you're right... Instead, they will defend every point as if it actually mattered.

The best analogy is like playing against someone in a position where you are completely lost.  You don't know it (or claim not to) and think the othe side is foolish to think they are winning.  Sometimes, it is better to just resign.  It's not like you have never lost before.  

If I said "mostly totally" made perfect sense to me, I am sure you would disagree.

I am 110% with you on that.

Which reminds me of a conversation I had with someone at work where I was affirming how much I was committed to some project or other. I told him "I am determined to give it 109%". His response was a look as if to say "What?! Why not 110%??". I didn't have the heart (or chutzpah) to deconstruct for him. 

If you want me to concede the semantics were poor, fine.  Don't think I'm trying to weasel out of it though when I say the idea was good.  I bring it up because you compare it to when others were debating weak/strong solutions and such.  In that circumstance the point of the debate was the ideas not the semantics.  To pick on semantics while ignoring the ideas avoids discussion all together.  The word choice may not have made perfect sense to you, but I'm sure you understood my meaning.

So I take back the words I said.  Let me rephrase it without changing the meaning at all: "a sotrng souotlin has vrey ltitle parcitcal vulae."

If chess was solved and all moves became known theory, what would this mean for otb. Probably not much, so its an academic question.

>:)