Chess will never be solved, here's why

@playerafar

I recommend that you help a player out by stop being so pretentious in your attempt in conversation my friend(no offense by any means, as you do make sense, it just doesn't seem necessary for the conversation we are having). I do admit that your information is helpful, but you don't say things in the right way, which makes me wonder what is the purpose of this forum in the first place, if you are just trying to show what you know, instead of having a discussion about opinions, and yes, at times, facts. We were talking about the game of chess being solvable, but now we are on a completely different thread, which is not why I came here, in honesty. 

I think you are a respectable player, no doubt as we've had our discussion in the past however, I just don't get why you are so uptight about these things. But then, I've said my piece, and I've learned some things on this forum, so I'd say, there is more to learn, in out and out of the chess board, so this forum is refreshingly different and exploratory as well. 

Whatever the case may be, good journeys to you and as always may we have good games! 

"so pretentious"
No pretense at all.
I meant every word.
" I do admit that your information is helpful"
then suggestion:  act like it.  Instead of confusing yourself.

to almost everybody else:
If the whole issue of basic units of computing speed is not brought into the discussion then there'll just be another 1000 posts of spam and another and another.
To do better - people needed who can quickly overcome any nonsense about 'nodes per second' and other spam.
For that - some credentials needed probably.
But many here might have friends who are more than versed enough about computer hardware.
There still might not be enough interest though.  Even then.
Usually - people go where the money is.  Especially when its 'professional'.

I know somebody who's a programmer. 
But I don't want to bug him about this right now.  
Tiny pun there.

#3507
"When regarding the timeline, I have no idea when it would be complete, however I am confident to say that it would be solvable in time."
++ As the late GM Sveshnikov said: "Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers - I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess."

So, some finite time. Perhaps a billion years? A trillion?

Sveshnikov's statement clearly referred to a non-rigorous practical analysis where implausible moves are ignored. Enough to convince a chess player, perhaps, but blatantly not good enough for a solution.

Do you understand what a rigorous solution of a chess problem is?  (Genuine question, not rhetorical).

#3516
Losing Chess has been rigorously solved considering 10^9 positions.
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/LCsolved.pdf 

The person who spams 'nodes' couldn't even understand when he was shown a clearly drawing position that a strong engine evaluates as a win.
Its like showing pictures of the receding horizon to a flat earther.
Same kind of thing.  
With flat earthers - there appears to be a deep animosity to science ...
but also a contempt for those who recognize the realities of the horizon.
They are 'fools' to 'believe' that the world is round.
But in this very obscure form of 'flat earth math' concerning a chess subject ...  it doesn't seem to be about animosity to science and logic?
The contempt factor is there though.

Yes, it has. This was practical because losing chess is a tiny game compared with the major classic games - chess, shogi, go. Be aware that this required not ignoring possible moves against a strategy.

The same is true of the solution of checkers. The same would need to be true of a hypothetical solution of chess.

#3520
So 5 years to convince a chess player and 500 years to convince a non chess player?

No, zero years and no evidence to convince one fanatic, unknown number of years to convince everyone else.

Chess will never be solved in our lifetime. 

@Optimissed may well be right. Exponential growth may still give you an impractically large number even if you ignore all but the top 4 engine candidates (woefully inadequate as such an approach might be).

"Yes, it has. This was practical because losing chess is a tiny game compared with the major classic games - chess, shogi, go."

Something wrong there because the word 'chess' appears in both parts of the sentence with the word 'compared' in between.

#3525
The fallacy of exponential growth has been debunked before.
Chess has many transpositions, different move sequences leading to the same position, that vastly reduces the number.

It doesn't reduce the number of positions At All.
Number of move sequences is different from number of positions.
But perhaps there would be 'cleverness' in confusing the two?
Magic?

No.

"Losing chess" is a different game. Think of it as a compound word.

No, it hasn't been debunked.  You have made unsuccessful claims about dropping 20-30 orders of magnitude, which nobody has ever agreed with other than yourself.  This would seem to be the opposite of the definition.

then what to do after it is solved lol 

#3533
"what to do after it is solved"
++ It will make no big difference.
People will avoid known losing lines which will narrow down defences for black,
but people will have a wider choice of equally drawish lines for white.
It is already partially the case now.
Carlsen, Nepo and their teams of grandmasters and cloud engines probably have largely solved the Petrov Defence, so Carlsen tried all different lines as white against them.
Carlsen and his team of grandmasters and cloud engines probably have largely solved the Sveshnikov and the Marshall, so Caruana and Nepo avoided the main line and tried early deviations.

#3532
Of course it is fully refuted.
If chess had no transpositions then the number of positions with width w = 4 and depth d = 40 would be: 1 + w + w² + w³ + ... + w^d = (w^(d+1) - 1) / (w - 1)
If all move orders could be permuted then that  would be
1 + w + w²/2 + w³/3! + ... + w^d/d! ~= e^w
where d! = 1 * 2 * 3*...*d
and e= 2.718281812
The truth lies between both: chess has many transpositions, but no full permutations.

w = 4??

Chess positions typically have 40 legal moves.

[Here I can save you blundering by saying some of them can be ignored. They can't unless based on an evaluation function that is so vast and sophisticated that it essentially includes a solution of chess].