Chess will never be solved, here's why

and smoothies!

and before we had you!

your bruh left the building loooooong ago.  careful you don't sound like a bruh-ken record.

you be careful too. I'm becoming a mod and like lol

Come on !  Fix 10120 !  It needs that Hat symbol in the middle ...
Yeah I know that's Old 'Hat' but still ...

I think Chess can in practice be solved and will be solved, but the path to the solution isn't what you expect. I think we'll develop an AI which always plays the optimum moves long before we can prove that they are the optimum moves. Over time, we'll come to accept that the AI has the solution because no human and no other AI can achieve better results. Then, given the generally accepted solution we'll be able to prove that it is the solution using a second level of AI which can devise a set of mathematical operations to collapse the verification space. Perhaps simultaneously, we'll develop a third level of AI which can "explain" the solution to us by converting it to a set of elegant rules, which a human can understand. Furthermore, I think this pattern of complex problem solving will also be applied to other systems which so far elude us.

@CraigIreland - but what's been happening is a new 'super-engine' comes out and beats the old one.
And are you aware that in one of these forums multiple positions were published where the 'super' Stockfish 14 assigned wins that are obviously draws even to an E player?

THIS TOPIC COPIED MY TOPIC

HE CREATED THIS THIS YEAR

I CREATED MINE LAST YEAR SEPT

Chess Will Never Be 100% Analyzed. Why? - Chess Forums - Page 23 - Chess.com

and here's one from 2013

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/true-or-false-chess-will-never-be-solved-why

just 1 among the few 100 topics on the same subject.

did you want to file a copyright?

Don't be abusive. I'm becoming mod soon.

with such a thin skin?  where's the abuse by the way?  and what's with all the shouting?

btw @chessflair01, just read your profile:

"I search chats and messages for abuse and report them. Traces of unfair games or engines will be reported too. Tell me if one's accuracy is somewhat suspicious or gameplay is unfair and I will speak to Chess.com staff promptly in and detail. I am mostly available, so contact me any time you have a problem."

really? you must be the life of the party :-)

But hey!  That's like Duty.
Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing.

yes the evil on chess.com must be stopped at all costs!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-eating-disorders/202110/why-do-we-judge-other-people

#3464
"Chess can in practice be solved and will be solved" ++ Yes.

"we'll develop an AI which always plays the optimum moves long before we can prove that they are the optimum moves."
++ Stockfish makes 1 error in 10^5 positions running 17 s/move on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine. Considering its top 4 moves reduces that error rate to 1 error in 10^20 positions, below 1 error over the collapsed space of 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions.

"collapse the verification space" ++ The verification space of 10^44 legal positions is too large to strongly solve chess to a 32-men table base. It would require 10^44 ns on 1 cloud engine of 10^9 nodes/s and it would at least require 10^44 bit of storage: draw / no draw. So collapsing the verification space to 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions is necessary and leads to a weak solution of chess, as done for Checkers 10^14 and Losing Chess 10^9.

"Perhaps simultaneously, we'll develop a third level of AI which can "explain" the solution to us by converting it to a set of elegant rules, which a human can understand."
++ Allen solved Connect Four by brute force calculation, and Allis by a set of 9 rules. 
There are rules for chess: play the center, castle, hang no pieces or pawns...

^^ Completely repetitive rubbish, without even a semblance of supporting argument and merely the result of blind belief in what a probably drunk gm once said, in an offhand remark.

After the persistent spam about nodes and square root -
I took the position that somebody would have to pay me a lot of money to even read 5% of those posts premised on such nonsense.
But I still often read some of the posts Refuting it and its many offshoots !
Usually such refuting posts skip the nodes/square root invalidities though.

Its definitely like the 'stroking' I've seen of conspiracy theorists in forums in discussion clubs.
Some members simply agree to talk with the flat earther or other theorists giving them exactly what they want which is to provide thorough refutations so that the pseudoscience theorist can continue to Reject same at enormous length and enormous repetition. 
Sometimes with some variations in the silly tactics.

Paradoxical how it works.
Refuters:  'We have him.  His stuff is 100% invalid.  Easy to refute."
Pseudoscience pusher:  'No !   I have You !  You invested time.  You paid attention.  You agreed to commit your time.  It is I who Owns You now !"

Based on nothing of any relevance.

Stockfish doesn't come close to being that accurate in tablebase positions (one of the few genuinely reliable tests we have of engine accuracy). The idea that the best opponent possible would win a fraction of 1% of games against Stockfish seems comical.

There's a demonstration of Elroch efficiency.
I don't need to read tygxc's posts.
The quote quickly isolated nonsense and false premise.

Rules that ensure blunders in large numbers of crucial decisions:

1. Where the only good moves are not central
2. Where the only good moves avoid castling
3. Where the only good move is to sacrifice (most chessplayers are aware these exist).