Chess will never be solved, here's why

     All of us commenting here are admittedly inferior judges of what the best moves, systems, plans, strategies, openings, whatever, might be in chess. We have all proved this by not winning every game we have played and cruising to the world championship. There are many, many players far superior to us.

     And all of those superior players are demonstrably inferior to the best computer programs in existence today. And these programs are admittedly imperfect; witness the fact that today's programs easily outperform those of 10 years ago, and no one doubts that today's best programs will be outclassed dinosaurs 10 years from now.

     The problem with the computer analysis of chess is the fact that the criteria used to evaluate positions however many moves ahead are based on human concepts of good and bad features. The precise values of different features in different positions continues to advance but is not yet foolproof.

     As a result, any method of trimming the amount of analysis necessary to solve chess is guaranteed to contain flaws and lead to somewhat inaccurate conclusions. The only 100% reliable solution is brute force calculation of all possible lines of play. The many explanations here and in similar forums as to the impossible immensity of this task convinces me that a quick solution is EXTREMELY unlikely, but saying that it can NEVER be done flies in the face of the history of human ingenuity and unforeseen revolutionary technological breakthroughs.

     I'm old enough that I doubt I will ever see chess solved but I do have faith that someday it will happen.

It's not chess ability that is relevant here. It appears it can be a psychological barrier to some. Rather some understanding of combinatorics and probability theory is needed.

Most people are incapable of understanding the subtlety that something may be close enough to certain to make it entirely sensible to be certain of it, without it really being so.

For example, if someone said a computer would completely randomly pick a number between 1 and a trillion minus 1 and asked would it be a number you picked (by writing down 12 digits of your choice), you could safely bet your life on it not matching. But while that bet might be reasonable, certainty would be incorrect.

The same is true when the number has 24 digits. Or 48. The probability of a match is so small it is perfectly reasonable to view it as zero. But anyone with adequate understanding can see it is not zero.

The value of 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 is actually very like that. It is conceivable that multiple flukes (that occur in parts of the analysis tree from this position that we have not looked at) conspire to make the result different to what we are sure of. The probability is low, extremely low (but more than 1 in 10^48, IMO). And this probability does not become zero until thorough analysis has been performed and we have eliminated the possibility of a weird fluke.

Just like for the example of guessing a 24 digit number, I can be absolutely certain that a view that the probability of being right is zero is incorrect. It's actually a small positive number, not zero.

[On an aside, it is fair to say that all scientific knowledge falls into this category of not quite certain. This is a consequence of the inductive way it is derived.  With logical reasoning, it is in principle possible to reach certain conclusions but a pedant might say this relies on a belief that no-one has made a mistake. I can't argue with this, but I can ignore it when I consider the conceptual difference!]

@Optimissed

Not what I suggested (no game).

My comment was about what you actually mean by "know". You can't really simultaneously maintain you "know" 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 is a forced win for Black and not be able to win from the position as Black against any opposition, not with any useful meaning of the word "know" (unless you have discovered an ultra weak solution for the position, which I think we can discount).

Can you win from the position against any opposition? If so you can win against SF15 (which is also far from being a strong player). If you post your game as I suggested then that would at least give you some credibility.

Otherwise explain what is the difference between your meaning of the word "know" and what most other people refer to as "think". 

You can't know anything of the sort.

Your maiden aunt might ring up in two minutes who never wants to ring off, some kids might have run off with all the flowers when you get outside or you could be struck by lightning as soon as you open the door. 

In fact 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6 may be a safer bet. But you don't actually know.

Lol, even here you are not 100% sure.  Thus, "theoretically".  You can't even hold up to your own absolute statements.

It's so simple.  You aren't sure, so stop saying you are 100% sure.  Nobody would have an issue.  But you can't.  You've made your declaration and the whole world cannot stop you, even though *your own mind qualifies the statement for you* . 

I cannot imagine living 70+ years inside your head, but you have my sympathy.

Nobody is claiming it should not be a win for black.  Stop deflecting.

You can only know it's theoretically won if you can win it against any opposition, unless you have devised an ultra weak solution, which would be, as Euclid might say, in your case, absurd. There is no better play than that, yours or anybody else's. So if it's not your best play, in particular, it follows you don't know it's theoretically won.

Nobody implied anything, that's your contorted defense mechanisms in operation.

Feigned boredom while posting frequently is another defense mechanism.

I'm not telling you what to think, just how to think more accurately.  That will probably send you into apoplexy, but...

Same old, same old.  Can't make an argument without resorting to namecalling.

@4136
We are speaking about a pawn, a bishop, or a tempo in the initial position.

The initial position is a draw. White is a tempo up. You cannot queen a tempo.
1 e4 b5 is a white win. White is a pawn up, queens it, and checkmates.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a black win. Black is up a bishop, trades it for a pawn, queens it, checkmates.

There is more logic in chess.
1 a4 does not accomplish as much as 1 e4 or 1 d4.
Thus once 1 e4 and 1 d4 are proven draws, then it sure that 1 a4 cannot win either.
1 Nh3 does not accomplish as much as 1 Nf3.
Thus once 1 Nf3 is proven a draw, then it is sure that 1 Nh3 cannot win either.

The same people who imply 1 a4 wins for white imply 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 draws for black. Strange.

All good rules of thumb.

I believe you genuinely don't understand the difference between:

"The same people who imply 1 a4 wins for white imply 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 draws for black"

and (the truth)

"The same people who acknowledge that it has not been proven that 1 a4 doesn't win for white also acknowledge correctly that it hasn't been proven that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 draws for white".

It is also clear that you do not understand the difference between an excellent bet and proven certainty (of the type achieved in the solution of checkers).

@4148
"Can you win from the position against any opposition?
If so you can win against SF15 (which is also far from being a strong player"
++ We are talking about the game theoretic value of the position.
Whether some forum contributor can or cannot achieve the game-theoretic value against Magnus Carlsen or Stockfish is completely irrelevant.

@4160
"You can only know it's theoretically won if you can win it against any opposition"
++ No that is false. An ultra-weak solution is possible without a weak solution,
just like a weak solution is possible without a strong solution.

Dirty play, revealing poor character.

You have no excuse for misrepresenting what @Optimissed [EDIT: it was @MARattigan] said by deleting the next part of his sentence, which said "unless you have devised an ultra weak solution..." I reject the possibility that your reading skills are poor enough to make this a mistake. 

@4167

"you do not understand the difference between an excellent bet and proven certainty
(of the type achieved in the solution of checkers)."
++ As said before: some things are known to be true, though not yet formally proven.
Yes, Checkers and Losing Chess have been weakly solved, Chess not yet.
I am not betting in any way.
Look at this scientific paper. It says knowledge, not bets.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf

Moreover it starts with no other human input but the Laws of Chess and it only calculates, i.e. performs boolean operations i.e. logic, so it produces theorems from axioms: the Laws of Chess.

This scientific paper in 5.2 p. 303 explicitly approves the use of knowledge in solving games
"Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based
methods in game-solving programs."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527 

#4171
There are between 10^29241 and 10^34082 possible chess games.
https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html

However, there are only 10^44 legal chess positions
https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking

Of which only 10^17 i.e. 100 million billion positions are sensible, reachable, and relevant.

Cloud engines can calculate a billion chess positions per second.
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis

In a year there are 365.25 * 24 * 3600 = 32 million seconds

3 Cloud engines can weakly solve chess in 5 years.

Just like 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.'

Human beings will never go into space or walk on the moon either.

Note the distinct lack of a supporting link in the drop from 10^44 to 10^17 ...