Chess will never be solved, here's why

I don't aspire to change any crackpot's mind, yours or his.  It's not possible to reason with somebody who is unreasonable.  The goal is to show that cracked pottery to everyone else, so they do not become crackpots themselves.

I cant tell if you guys love or hate each other that must be why they say its a thin line.  Its like an abusive relationship where they keep going back anyway.  That's kind of what i said before though if you cant even agree on what words mean what makes you think you can agree on this ever.  We could have the 32 piece table base floating on a alien spacecraft that literally has the answers people would still be like " nah not buying it fam" . 

Exercises for a reader more capable of reasoning clearly than @tygxc:

1. Exhibit a position where a single tempo is sufficient to win (i.e. having the move makes the difference between winning and not winning)
2. Exhibit a position where a single tempo is sufficient to lose (i.e. having the move makes the difference between losing and not losing). [Hint:  in chess theory this has a German name beginning with "Z"].

So, strictly speaking, it is not a general rule. How many exceptions, in percentage?

Unproven.

Appeal to authority.

Afaik, in checkers (a simpler game than chess) some openings are considered "trivial" and they had not been checked when the game was announced solved. There is ongoing computation to solve them too, though. Losing chess has been solved from the initial position, as you well know.

They cannot check all the lines a computer would search in 5 years, so it could evaluate as worse lines that in fact are better and prune them, according to an algorithm (sort of) you have provided (which cuts off lines on the basis of unproven assumptions), without the good assistants being able to intervene.

Repetition. Unproven.

Unproven.

Non sequitur. It is not proved that those strategic rules are good for any situation. 1. a4 gives a worse expected score in practical play; that does not imply its game-theoretic value is lower than 1. d4 or 1. e4. It has to be proven by a "formal" proof, as you call it.

Your usual "provability is a higher degree of truth" is an ambiguous, out of the context statement, which does not say anything about the possibility to know that unproven things are true; and you said you read it on Scientific American, but do not remember the exact reference, therefore nobody can falsify you.

Chess is solved I solved it, you're all noobs

#4001
"If Shveshnikov were still alive and he changed his mind, would that convince you?"
++ He would not have any reason to change his mind: he was right.
All facts and figures support his bold claim.
The only thing that would convince me is a valid counterargument.
So far I have only read insults, not one single even remotely valid counterargument.
The first people who said humans can walk on the Moon also met unfounded criticism.

#4008

"So, strictly speaking, it is not a general rule." ++ It is a general rule, but has exceptions.

"1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 provides no compensation at all and can be dismissed.
Unproven." ++ I provided proof above: it is a forced checkmate in 82.

""they can be sound (1. e4 e5 2. f4)" ++ 'It loses by force' - Fischer, 'I could not find a way for white to equalise' - Kramnik '23.4% black wins, 6.3% white wins' - AlphaZero Figure 4. (d)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf 
Appeal to authority."
++ Expert opinions plus independent calculations with no other input but the Laws of Chess

"Afaik, in checkers (a simpler game than chess) some openings are considered "trivial" and they had not been checked when the game was announced solved. There is ongoing computation to solve them too, though. Losing chess has been solved from the initial position, as you well know."
++ Losing Chess has the same 64 squares, 32 men, 6 kinds of men as Chess and needed only 10^9 positions not 10^44 to weakly solve it by interaction of humans and computers. It has been solved variation by variation, simplest first. The humans selected the course and the computers verified by calculation until the table base.

"They cannot check all the lines a computer would search in 5 years"
++ They avoid useless calculations in clear wins, clear draws, or meaningless lines.

"1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses a bishop for no compensation.
It is a sure loss for white, no doubt at all. So it can be dismissed.
Repetition. Unproven." ++ I provided proof above: it is a forced checkmate in 82.

"1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1 is nonsense, does not try to win and thus can be dismissed.
Unproven."
++ This is ridiculous. So you think 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1 is a good try to win, better than 1 e4 or 1 d4?

"It is not proved that those strategic rules are good for any situation. 1. a4 gives a worse expected score in practical play; that does not imply its game-theoretic value is lower than 1. d4 or 1. e4." The game-theoretic value of 1 a4 may well be the same as 1 d4 or 1 e4: a draw. The point is that it is unthinkable that the game-theoretic value of 1 d4 and of 1 e4 is a draw and that the game-theoretic value of 1 a4 were a white win. The argument is not about practical play, it is about the accomplishment of the move in terms of the center and development.
AlphaZero ranked all first moves with no other input but the Laws of Chess and thus acquired chess knowledge, i.e. a set of theorems derived from axioms: the Laws of Chess by logic: boolean operations.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 

#4004

"Exercises for a reader more capable of reasoning clearly than @tygxc:"
++ You clearly are not such a reader.

"Exhibit a position where a single tempo is sufficient to win" ++ That is completely besides the question. It is a about a single tempo in the initial position, not in some pawn endgame.

Yes. the handy link URL tool works better.

@4016 

"The method you propose seems to have guidance from GMs who are supposed to curtail irrelevant lines."
++ Yes, the good assistants launch calculations from relevant starting points and end calculations whenever there is no more doubt about the draw or win, i.e. when they would agree on a draw or resign in a correspondence game.

"Yet we're talking about examining billions of relevant positions in five years."
++ More exactly 10^17 positions, that is 100 million billion positions.

"Therefore, the number of positions to be examined is far in excess of that number."
++ No, the number of positions to be examined is the number of positions to be examined.
For comparison: Checkers was solved with a proof tree of 10^7 positions and a solution tree of 10^14 positions i.e. for each position in the proof tree there were 10^7 positions examined.

"Consequently it would be necessary to develop an algorithm, to do it automatically."
++ No, human grandmasters plus Stockfish on cloud engines is enough.
Checkers was solved with a human Schaeffer with his program Chinook.

"I think Sveshnikov overlooked the fact that a reliable solution means 100% accuracy."
++ What makes you think that? I think Sveshnikov was well aware of all ramifications. He was a grandmaster and 65+ World Champion. He was a professional analyst and he had analysed before and after engines. He held a MSc in engineering. He authored several books with analysis. He even taught aspiring masters how to analyse with engines.

"There can't be a single error or it isn't a reliable proof or solution."
++ That is with every proof. That already was the case with the Four Color Theorem.

"The GMs couldn't guarantee 100% accuracy even if they had the time to look properly at the positions."
++ They can. They launch the calculations. They stop the calculation when they would resign or agree on a draw. ICCF correspondence players also resign lost positions and agree on a draw in drawn positions. They never resign any tenable position or agree on a draw in a won position.

"That is why your proposed solution in 5 years is definitely non-viable."
++ That is why the proposed solution in 5 years by Sveshnikov is viable.

The pedantic adherence to using transient and possibly faulty post numbers is directly analogous to the pedantic adherence to using faulty assumptions and numbers in trying to solve chess .

@btickler are you ok I?

Chess is exact and finite, and with all respect, that doesn't depend on your ability of comprehension at the moment

Why wouldn't I be ok?

I am not sure you are applying "that doesn't depend on your ability of comprehension at the moment" at the target you meant to.

Finally!

Good on you sir!

I was not. @tygxc supported his claim that a pawn of advantage is a win quoting Capablanca. Besides the fact that this is an appeal to authority, Capablanca wrote that "the winning of a pawn among good players of even strength often means the winning of the game" (Chess Fundamentals, emphasis mine), which is rather different from "always wins the game, with exceptions". Engines usually assign the advantage of a pawn an expected score around 0.75.

The reason why I insist on that goes beyond the actual value of a pawn. It is to state that it is not possible, in order to declare chess solved, to cut off lines on the basis of "general" principles not proven to always hold true (in chess, indeed, most of them are proven to not always hold true).

That's a pooh-pooh. Stating that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 may even win, as above goes beyond the value of the specific line. Allowing dismissals of such lines would create precedents too, and it would be very difficult, then, to fix boundaries for what can or cannot be cut off during the search.

Missing the point. It is not acceptable when discussing about solutions. A solution has to prove whether and when authorities are right, not the other way around.

And after two "ad hominem"

Thank you for the tip, but sorry, I am not taking you as an example of good arguing.

It is not going to move. That's because, despite the inevitable @tygxc's reply, chess cannot be solved in reasonable time, at the moment. But some people never concede, as you yourself noted. So what do you expect? The only thing one can do is to fight attempts of deceiving and disinformation.

@4024

"In any case, the numbers cannot be achieved in 5 years."
++ Because you say so? I take the word of Sveshnikov over yours. The numbers confirm it.

"I believe that you give him too much credit."
++ I believe you do not pay him enough respect. He knew what he was talking about.

"Trillions of positions in five years?" ++ Yes: a billion positions per second per cloud engine.

"Each with human intervention?" ++ No. Human intervention only at the start and at the end.

I'm just curious, when does the 5 year period start? Was it a year ago? 4 years ago? I know it's not today.

@4028

"when does the 5 year period start?"
++ When there is money for the cloud engines and the assistants.

@4030

"you clearly state that each positional assessment is guided by a human GM"
++ No, not at all. The humans start the calculations from meaningful positions.
Not 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, not 1 a4, not 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1.
The humans also select the promising lines, e.g. 1 e4 e5, renouncing all other 19 replies.
The humans stop a calculation when it is a clear draw or win. E.g. when one side is material down with no compensation or in some opposite colored bishop endings. That is to save engine time. In case of any doubt, calculate more.

"It's impossible for humans to deal with such numbers." ++ The humans do not deal with the numbers, the engines do. The humans only reduce the number the engines have to deal with.

"he would have thought it possible" ++ Sveshnikov clearly stated so in his farewell interview.

"why YOU think it possible" ++ Because I have calculated the number of legal, sensible, reachable during solving, and relevant positions to be 10^17 and that corresponds to 5 years.

"Trillions of positions in five years?"
++ Yes: 5 a * 365.25 d/a * 24 h/d * 3600 s/h * 10^9 position/s/engine = 10^17 position/engine

"Each with human intervention?" ++ No, not at all. The humans only start the calculations and occasionally end a calculation in case of clear win or draw.

"why you can think it possible that a human can personally intervene"
++ The humans set up the starting positions.
The humans occasionally end a calculation that has arrived at a clear draw or win.

"Trillions of positions in five years?" ++ Yes 10^17 positions.

"Each with human intervention?" ++ No. The humans start the calculations.
The humans occasionally end a calculation whenever they notice a clear draw or loss.