> I wouldn't discount symmetries in chess

I didn't ... the word used was "supersymmetry". And likening chess to a Rubik's cube or cryptanalysis is just silly ... silly enough that I'm going to stop commenting. But:

> None of the existing engines, heuristic, probabilistic, heuristic and probabilistic, are so far (a) bringing new maths to help apply new maths to chess positions, (b) bringing new game-representations that would lend better to interpretability during inference.

Sigh. The people developing chess engines are not idiots, and are strongly motivated to find the most effective algorithms.