I think that he is the only one being practical and sensible.
I find it funny that ever since you stopped working on your game, or at least stopped writing C++ code, all you seem to do is spam on this topic, about 6 times a day with the odd religious rant thrown in now and then, maybe you got too much time on your hands.
You think this topic is popular and everybody is reading it? most people think it is a joke and most people, including me just ignore all the rubbish being posted.
Enumerating all the positions is easy.
Nonsense. It took 20 years and 200 full time computers to solve checkers. The Weak proof solved only a few opening moves with best play. The method if used for chess is IMPOSSIBLE. You make the most outlandish false statements.
Exactly. It is easy in the same sense as running round the world in one second is easy. i.e. NOT
@btickler,
You could make yourself useful by trying to attract people from engine developer forums or something, since you have expressed that would make you "happy".
"If this discussion had anything approaching value like an engine developer forum or something, I would be quite happy about it."
Just a thought.
Why in God's name would I mess up the potential for real progress by inviting anyone to come discuss anything in this thread? Why would they come, anyway? There's nothing in this thread to generate interest or new ideas.
Probably better that the cuckoos stay in their gilded cages. Maybe I am just wasting my time, after all 
. I could just come back in 6 months and refute the self same BS being posted today.
There is a record of what has happened, and there is what will happen. The record of what has happened is not a good indicator of what will happen. It is one tool to try to predict what will happen, but prediction of the future, especially when it comes to people, is faulty.
For example, you could actually contribute something useful, even though the record indicates otherwise.
Several of my posts on this thread have more facts and information than you've posted in your entire time at chess.com combined. I'll let others judge the worth of them, because you certainly cannot, either from a moral/deserved-ness standpoint or intellectually.
You're a troll, and a bad one at that, which anyone reading some of your other threads can readily ascertain. Who doesn't know that Bobby Fischer died years ago? Certainly nobody that is an avid chess player.
if the very best current chess engines cannot solve a chess problem that a 74 year old human solved in 6 minutes--what is the hope that a computer could solve chess from the initial position?????
The position does not load from your post. Maybe try the game board provided in the posting box and you'll get a response.
i gave it twice already but will give it again. White to move--find the best continuation...
I do not know why you are not getting the position so i will tell you in words what the position is--in hope that someone will post the position.
First it is White to move and find the best continuation
White has a K on e1 and a B on g1
White also has pawns on c6 d5 e4 f2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black has a K on f6 Black has pawns on a5 c7 d6 e5 g2 and h3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ a 13 piece endgame]
not loading ponz111
you need to use the chess board provided in the post box and set up position.
23bog loaded the position [thank you!] [maybe because i use version 2--it did not show to version 3?]
In any event i believe 23 bog indicated the position is winning for Black [0-1]
However the chess engines are wrong! I found a forced draw for White.
For that position the best chess engines cannot find the forced draw for White. However i found it in 6 minutes. it is White to move.
Try it--put it on your chess engines...
Briefly looked ponz.. I suspect you've missed something. Black has a Queening "trick" at g1.
Probably published so I believe you. I've seen similar positions with pawns and B and comps can't find the solution.
Btw.. v3 has not supported chess diagrams from v2 in some time.
Stockfish gives a win for Black. The White King is forced to stop the pawn. Black plays g1=Q and King infiltrates. Both sides promote, but Black wins with extra pawn.
Stockfish gives a win for Black. The White King is forced to stop the pawn. Black plays g1=Q and King infiltrates. Final position is shown with White King on b7. Both sides promote, but Black wins.
Sorry but i am a rather strong chess player and at age 74 found a forced draw for White. and it took me only 6 minutes.
So this brings up a question, while computers are trying to solve chess they have to look at many trillions [really much more] of positions and give evaluations of each position. This is really difficult and sometimes the chess engines cannot "think" as well as a 74 year old man. [as in the example]
You know i use version 2 for the vote chess team i am in and just about every move i give 2 or 3 diagrams with posssible moves and they [the team members] seem to see these diagrams? But here when i do a diagram it does not show [it shows to me on version 2'
Give your solution. I think you are wrong.
v2 diagrams not supported in v3 forums. In the posting box there is a chess board that is to be used for showing puzzles and diagrams.
Some of the crazies here are nerds who say, basically, that the problem boils down to too many positions, and not enough time or computing power to solve them in 1000 billion years,
If so, I agree thgat no "solution" is available.
I have a Rook and King at one end of the board, and my opponent has a lone King at the other end.
In realistic terms, I know I have a win for certain.
Would they agree or not that the problem for such an instance is solved?
Or, is it not solved because I cannot give the "analysis" required without giving every possible move and answer? Is that analysis required for that case to show I have solved the problem for the general case od K+R vs K?
Oh, no, do not be ridiculous, @camter, we have an algorithm!
I agree and I know the algorithm, because the technique is simple.
But, what if the positon we are confronted with has 10 chess pieces a side, and has consequently a very large complexity?
As long as I can "describe" a technique to the computer for that position, I can get a solution.
That is why some nerds are trying to use relational database ideas, and stuff like that, to solve Chess. Good luck to them, and it may work in lots of cases.
But, I cannot see why that is necessary or even possibly desirable.
Surely, brute force, capacity and time are all that is required.
There are gazillions of possibilities in a game of Chess, and because of that, there is a thing called the horizon effect, because of the limitation in time and resources. So, we have the eval which is insufficient for the time available thereof.
That eval is a tool, or number, which helps with a concrete solution, but a help only, as the present computer cannot see beyond the horizon, because somewhere beyond that horizon lies a mate for Black or White, or it does not and so we have an impasse, which we can call a draw, if we allow (by arbitrary rules in most cases) that a position has insufficient material, a repetition of moves, stalemate, or a 50 (pick your number) move rule, or "agreement".
Give your solution. I think you are wrong.
v2 diagrams not supported in v3 forums. In the posting box there is a chess board that is to be used for showing puzzles and diagrams.
if i give the solution will you please publish it using your version 3?
The White King must capture the a pawn at a2. The White Bishop must go to h2. Black King captures Whites d, e, f, pawns. White King gets to b5 and Bishop sacs. Both sides promote but Black has extra pawn. No perpetual for White.
I guarantee you that nothing whatsoever helpful in the solving of chess is ever going to come from this particular thread...
Is it your personal objective to make sure that is the case?
Hardly. If this discussion had anything approaching value like an engine developer forum or something, I would be quite happy about it. Sadly, we have none of that. We have 130 pages of rehashed fluff and garbage. It's tragically bad. Even moreso because this thread is just a follow on to another lost 50-100 page thread that came before it.
It's pretty funny that your outlook is that great strides could be made in this thread if only I was not suppressing your brilliance
. Let's look deeper into your idea to store pawn positions...yeah, that one can go far.
You're arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.