Chess will never be solved, here's why

Why is it relevant? I know that you aren't very good at making arguments. You just make a claim and surround it with irrelevant words and think that's it. So have a go at making an argument that works and is convincing. Of course, I know you'll say that you won't do that because I'm telling to to do it and it isn't necessary and I'm just trying to exert my authority, because everyone knows that you're right.

Unfortunately, if you don't make an argument, all you have is empty words (and a lot of them). Without even an attempt at an argument, you just make yourself look even sillier. If you were to at least have a try, I would think that people's opinion of you would go up.

Which looks like - strong and weak are not exclusive of each other - and would seem to again indicate the relevancy of each - to each other.  
"Of course".
In some other locations on the website - there's a person vehemently arguing that the earth is flat and that the moon doesn't exist.
Does 'proof' exist between him and his opponents?  In either direction?
But even in his case - he doesn't personalize much.
Not much 'authoritation'.
He doesn't react to disagreement/criticism of his posts emotionally nor egotistically.   Which is abbreviation of 'not intensely or not at all'.  
Like many - he seems to realize that ego is so often not an 'amigo'.  
But some never break free from that.  
In order to protect the internal falsehoods - they project.
Part of this discussion is perception of 'solved'.
And perception of others' perceptions.  As opposed to 'cognitive bias'.

I already gave a correct argument as to why a strong solution is irrelevant to a solution for chess. It's because a solution of chess is an appraisal of the innate balance in the game ... whether it's a draw with best play, as seems to be the case, and what are the best attempts to win for either side. That involves both sides playing good moves. A "strong" solution, which is appallingly bad terminology, is simply a list of all possible move permutations. The list is so long that it could never even be written down. It could never be evaluated. Anyone with even a slight degree of intelligence should see that it isn't relevant. It's like looking for your wallet in Antarctica, when you know you dropped it in Las Vegas. If you can't understand that it's irrelevant, then you cannot have a mind that is functioning.

@haiaku, if we start with candidate moves for one side, we certainly don't check its value against all opposing moves. If Elroch claimed that, then he's wrong. If we have candidate moves for one side then, equally, we have candidates for the next move ... the next ply, and so on.

Ignored the last few posts by the person trying to authoritate 'irrelevant'.  Didn't read them.  Pingpong with somebody else perchance.
Perhaps he'll get response from somebody else.

But his narrowness of view - has uses.
Hopelessly narrow views may cause persons to express better and more objective views.  And more constructive.
What about alternatively - @tygxc ?  
He's pursuing an alternative to strong solving.  Others disagree - but he's demonstrating how to post so very much better than that other guy !

During practical play yes, we do as you say; but to solve a chess problem (e.g. "chekmate in two") we have to check all the opponent's replies to our selected moves, otherwise we cannot be sure we have solved it.

As for 'candidate moves' -is any approach that ignores 'sufficient losing/winning/drawing chances' doomed to being crassly invalid?  
ty has suggested four candidate moves per side.  Onwards.
It is invalid.  Even for many definitions of 'weak' solving.
Its not invalid for extreme definitions.  
But at least its a start or attempt at something.  

"we have to check all the opponent's replies to our selected moves, otherwise we cannot be sure we have solved it."
Correct.  Especially for computers.
Could there be exceptions ?
Somebody makes a move threatening mate in one.
In order to find a move irrelevant to the threat - like a pawn move on the other side of the board that doesn't do anything relevant
that determination of irrelevancy still has to be made.
Including if its computers doing it.
For humans 'we have to check' might be defined differently.
The human doesn't have to 'crunch' like a computer does to determine that many moves are irrelevant.
But that determination still has to be made.
I've seen so many people mess up so many times on that - in the tactics puzzles !  

#2978
"to solve a chess problem (e.g. "chekmate in two") we have to check all the opponent's replies to our selected moves, otherwise we cannot be sure we have solved it."
++ Chess is more like "white to play, black draws".
Moves that do not even try to win for white can safely be ignored, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 or 1 a4.

A large part of the reason the thread is, as @Optimissed put it, going round and round in circles is that there is not general agreement on what is meant by many of the terms that are in frequent use.

Including, but not necessarily limited to; "chess", "solved", "weakly solved", "strongly solved", "position", "diagram" and "proof". 

As far as the term "chess" is concerned, there are many candidates. FIDE define several games; a basic rules game and various flavours of game with competition rules added. There are also  games played according to ICCF rules or TCEC rules and versions defined by USCF that many American readers would understand as chess.

With my meaning of "solved" I don't believe any of those versions can be solved, but I'll leave that for a different post.

As regards "position", your meanings are, I believe, different from those of most of the people contributing. Also different from the meaning in any of the documents that have been linked to (including the FIDE laws). 

You actually have two different meanings in your above post. In the first definition you specify, "One piece per square" and (subsequently implied) "legal possible arrangements ", but those specifications are omitted in your second definition (the latter specifically).

The difference is that "positions" with your first meaning would not include "positions" with your second meaning that could legitimately occur in a game such as the one below.

Notice I've edited out the White square in the lower right hand corner indicating that it's White's move (compared with the similar image I posted here) to conform with your definition. (Though the "position" in your second sense could legitimately occur in a game only if it's White's move.)

Nor "positions" in your second sense that couldn't legitimately occur in a game such as the following:

Obviously which of the definitions you choose would affect the number of "positions" - finite in the first case, unlimited in the second.

But either of your definitions would fall under what most people here, and some of the linked documents, refer to as diagrams, not positions.

I would say that it is inconvenient for most purposes to have the term "position" refer to anything that doesn't fully define what play is legitimate from the position. With your definitions it is not possible to say exactly what play is legitimate from any "position".

You are talking about playing chess, not solving chess. Your whole mode of thinking is wrong.

"Moves that do not even try to win for white can safely be ignored, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 or 1 a4."
I disagree.  1) a4 has insufficient losing chances and more than sufficient winning chances - that it cannot be ignored.

For threats of chekmate in one move, some lines can be pruned, but that requires some computations too, so it would not have a great impact on the whole search for a solution of chess.

#2983
"You are talking about playing chess, not solving chess."
++ No, on the contary when playing chess it is sometimes advisable to play an inferior move, like Lasker often did and like most simul players regularly do.
Weakly solving chess is about determining a strategy from the initial position to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition. If the strategy is proven against the stiffest opposition, then the weaker moves that do not even oppose to the draw become trivial.

I have provided a paper that clearly contradicts the interpretation of "any opposition" you give.

@MARattigan
I don't keep repeating maximum of one piece per square because that is to be understood.
For example - I also don't specify that the 64 squares are in one plane.
In an 8x8 arrangement.
Nor that knights move in a particular L shape.

Regarding 71 digit number - when I re-looked up 13 to the 64th power on the web - over forty years later.
it gave a single digit coefficient followed by 10 to the 71.
I'm going to concede that one to you.
72 digit number.  10 squared is a three digit number.
So 1 has to be added to the length of the number.
I'll concede that one to you ... Literally.  Pun intended.

As for whoever complaining about 'conversation going around in circles' we're coming up on 3000 posts now - so whoever is so unhappy with the conversation has an odd way of showing it by making it a point to be present and posting.
Suggestion:  if more progress is desired - then whoever could try refraining from imposing narrowness of view with authoritative thoughtlessness.
Didn't he imply something about 'asking for proof' that you very quickly Crushed?
He's invested a lot of posts in personalization and then complains about 'going in circles' ...
But that hasn't been totally useless because others have made it a point to put their postings in much better ways than that. 

But what tygxc is saying in #2986 is clearly correct. You should be relying on a "paper". If you can't explain in your own words and with your own ideas why your proposition is correct, you can't rely on a paper, since if you can't explain it in your own words then you probably wouldn't understand the paper. That means that you would be simply taking it on trust, which at best is an argument from authority. They can be wrong but more likely, they can be arguing for something different from what it may be thought they're arguing for.

You don't have the intelligence and focus to see a thing.

Yes.  And I'll be curious to see how ty sidesteps or parries or ignores.
Stands. 
(While whoever complains about 'going in circles'. 
While he's spamming/trolling at the same time. )

'Weakly solving chess' could be about anything anybody wants it to be.
The latitude built into the word 'weakly' is so broad - that it could mean - 'chess is a draw if nobody makes a mistake - but with possible exceptions because nobody has ever conclusively proven that'