Chess Will Never Be Solved. Why?

If they disagreed with me, I think they'd be wrong, but then, being a pro player makes you good at playing chess but not at understanding what a full analysis would require.

To find such a sequence, it would be necessary to analyse all the lines resulting from more than every logically possible position.

I'm just joking .... since such a sequence doesn't exist. However, that's not the point, because it's off-topic. The topic isn't about a possible winning sequence but specifically about analysing every possible sequence. Sure, "every possible sequence" has no bearing on chess, because the overwhelming number of possible games of chess are nonsense in chess terms. As soon as an obviously losing mistake is made, in chess terms the position is nonsense, just the same as if you played 1. a3, 2. Ra2 and 3. Ra1. But that's what the question asked.

#115
"the overwhelming number of possible games of chess are nonsense in chess terms"
++ Yes, that is right. Besides it is not every possible sequence, but every legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant position.
Many sequences transpose to the same position: 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nc6 3 Nf3 = 1 e4 Nc6 2 Nf3 e5 3 Bc4 = 1 Nc3 Nf6 2 e4 e5 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bc4 Ng8 5 Nb1 etc. etc.
Many positions are nonsense, like with a material deficit without compensation.

It's been the sticking point and, somehow, the cause of different parties being unable to agree even on the fundamentals that are necessary as a base for meaningful discussion. I think the sticking point has been a sort of recursive inability to get their heads around the idea that in the process of trying to analyse chess, it's necessary to prune search trees. They claim search trees can't be pruned without definite knowledge of the results of that pruning.

Obviously never heard of methodology of successive approximations and other pragmatically based exercises. It means that arguments have never progressed beyond "if we don't know the results, how can we plan the search pruning?"

#117
"in the process of trying to analyse chess, it's necessary to prune search trees"
++ Yes, very much so.
It is necessary to prune search trees.
It is necessary to end search when a known draw or win has occured even with > 7 men.
"it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based methods in game-solving programs"
- Prof. Em. J. van den Herik

"it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based methods in game-solving programs"
which is confused with unfounded skipping of positions.
Or used instead of confused - to justify such illogical skipping.
And mentioning a name like den Herik doesn't make something right either.
And apparently nobody is buying - in the literal sense of the word that there's a legitimate 'weakly' solving of chess in five years.

@Ubik42 why? What obvious reasons?

ches is a very comlicated game

computers even though they are really good

chess is way too many numbers for themm

From what post?

Current computers are very fast - but just not nearly fast enough to 'solve' chess.
If they were a trillion times faster - then maybe a chance?
But how long would that take?  For computers to improve that much ?
That in itself could take thousands of years - or even millions.

Possible...

Though chess is a very infinte game...

It will take a lot of strong programmers to take on such a feat...

Or maybe it is not even possible...

But we're not talking about this in practical terms. The question is will chess be 100% analyzed? Chess is a finite game, so eventually it will be solved. There's only so many positions that occur on the chessboard, and eventually computers will solve chess. That's how I see it. Seems pretty logical to me...

     You might want to check out the forum "Chess will never be solved" where computer scientists have been discussing the difficulties involved in actually achieving the solution.

We need math to solve this

Well, according to the answer I gave, no, it will never be solved 100%, because the amount of analysis required to do so is virtually infinite. It will never be solved in the way you mean because it's impossible in real terms.

Chess isn't infinite.  There's a finite number of positions.
Upper bounds on that number are known.  Well known.
They start with 13 multiplied by itself 63 times.
13 to the 64th power.
Because there are 64 squares and each square can only have a maximum of 13 states.   6 types of piece - but two colors.  Plus a square can be empty.
That number can be further reduced by 32 of the squares having to be definitely empty.  The math for that not heavyweight.
But such 'cutdowns' get more difficult - the more are attempted.
And eventually become illegitimate.  

@ Shrek - you're correct that the number of positions is finite.
'Eventually' - yes - but only with provisos.  That computers improve enough (and that's a Lot of improvement) and there's enough time and there's enough interest and money for same.
It also makes the assumption that something won't get in the way too.
A lot can happen in Ten Million Years ... or whatever.

#130
"the amount of analysis required to do so is virtually infinite"
++ No not at all. The number of legal chess positions is finite: 10^44.
The number of legal, and sensible positions is less than 10^38.
The number of legal, sensible, and reachable positions is a tiny fraction of that.
The number of legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions is a tiny fraction of that.
Sveshnikov said: "Give me five years, good assistants and modern computers, and I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess."
3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s can indeed weakly solve chess in 5 years, provided that the human assistants prune away the non relevant positions based on chess knowledge.