Chess will never be solved, here's why

@4295
Your post is a heap of crap.
The scientific paper ranks all initial moves in figure 5 and figure 31.

Precisely. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is nowhere considered. The results are for practical play not perfect play.
Hence it is clear that considering 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3 as first moves is enough.

Are you saying that is a conclusion of the paper or your own?
That 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white is obvious. I even proved it is a forced checkmate in 82.

And to everyone else, even those without a degree in flower arranging, that's obviously not a proof. I proved that the starting position is a win for Black in 2 using your method.

We can safely say that the probability that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses by force is 1. 

@4299
There is no probability: a position is either a draw, a win, or a loss. There are no in between probabilities. There is no probably winning or losing, only either draw, win, or loss.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a sure loss for white, based on knowledge. Likewise 1 e4 d5 2 Qg4 and 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5 are sure losses for white. That are no assumptions, that is knowledge.
1 e4 b5, 1 e4 f5, 1 d4 g5 are sure losses for black, no assumptions, but knowledge.
There is no need for any magical algorithm to decide so. Any human with knowledge of chess can and a grandmaster surely can.

This discussion is about solving chess.

True. You seem confused between that and confidently guessing the result of chess.

Your subjective and personal reticence, regarding committing yourself to any firm decision on the objective merits of random series of moves, means that your comments, however intrinsically accurate they may be, are inapplicable to this discussion.

I have to accept that the general point about inductive reasoning is beyond you. While that is not ideal, it can't be helped.

If you can't bring yourself to know that something like 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 loses for white, but you only think it so, then logically, you cannot bring yourself to fully accept that any random series of moves, no matter how ridiculous, ends in a definite, forced result with best play, without tracing all lines to the end.

I apply the same general truths about reasoning to everything. You are unaware of them so cannot do so.

It means that on your say-so, it would be impossible to cut down the myriad permutations of moves in chess, to leave only relevant (i.e. sensible) moves.

No. Try to keep up. This has already been clarified. The solution of checkers exemplifies that you can be selective for one side when verifying a strategy. It also exemplifies that you cannot be at all selective about the other one. No exceptions for positions where one side has two more kings or other flawed heuristics.

So we're left with the total number of permutations or variations, which is said to be over 10 ^100.

No, for multiple reasons. The first is that, assuming we are talking about basic chess, there are only ~10^44 positions. The second is the twice explained point above. Please try to understand it.

A so called "strong" solution is therefore necessary, to produce the foolishly named "ultra-weak" solution of whether chess is a draw or not, with best play.

No. Same mistake again. Seriously, you should stop making this mistake.

Such a full solution, consisting of tracing all the possible chess lines to their ultimate conclusion, seems impossible to achieve, by any means. It would certainly be impossible to store the results, using present or foreseeable technology.

First understand that a 32 piece tablebase is a strong solution, then understand that, as for checkers, a weak solution can be a lot smaller (just as for checkers).

I can only conclude that your refusal to understand the processes that need to be involved in solving chess is wilful. But it seems rather an extreme method of negating tygxc's claims and it makes you just as incorrect, wrt answering this, as he undoubtedly is. It was unnecessary and pedantic to make your detailed explanations, which were obvious, although inapplicable to the question of solving chess. It's an absolute necessity to be able to assess positions to eliminate lines that are irrelevant to "best play".

This is a useful heuristic that allows the selection of moves for one side in a strategy. This was how checkers was solved, assisted by a much smaller table-base than the full 24 piece one.

It's a win. Understanding that is a product of chess knowledge, which doesn't entirely depend on ratings. After all, a bullet rating of 2700 may mean nothing except a person can move fast. Those who maintain it may not be a win have less and not more understanding. However, there will be positions, not unlike that one, where we cannot be sure. That isn't one of them. The probability of it being a win is 1 and the probability of that statement being correct is 1.

I'd like to see anyone refute the idea that 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 is a win for black. There's a point to that challenge.

No, I agreed with Mar that it would be a start for Optimissed to make his point.

Robot is an inaccurate term here.

Quoting you here:

"If you cannot win a position against *any* opposition put forth, then you cannot claim you are "100% sure" it is a winning position"

This is why we cant have nice things, cos you lie.

Please stop trying to get me to understand things. You're speaking to me as if I know nothing but you have a lot of catching up to do. I don't think it helps you having btickler arguing on "your side", parroting what you're saying, more or less. He's providing you with confirmation bias.

I don't mean that what you are saying is wrong but it misses the practicalities of solving chess. You will insist on explaining things like what a 32-man tablebase might be. I would say that is holding back your ability to keep up with me. I'm not btickler or one of the others, to whom you have to constantly explain things. I think you need to catch up with me because you are not addressing the practical difficulties involved in "solving chess". Just constantly skirting around them and, I would venture to say, hiding behind a pretence that there are things you need to explain to me.

If I don't understand something, I will ask.

Hello dimwit.

No, you misinterpret.

I was talking to Optimissed, who steadfastly refuses to engage in any logical solutions, and just wants to claim certainty via his own "knowledge".  Since he refuses to use other methods, or even to acknowledge the terminology then *in his case* he needs to prove his "I'm 100% sure" statement in the only manner left to him.

Take your "cos you lie" comment and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.  By that I mean Finland, of course.

@4307
"First understand that a 32 piece tablebase is a strong solution, then understand that, as for checkers, a weak solution can be a lot smaller (just as for checkers)."
++ Very much indeed.

Difficult to tell the difference between dishonesty and disability. I can be confident of winning a simple position like bishop up on move two and I really don't need to give every possible line to convince someone who isn't very bright that it's a win.

But you fail to distinguish between being able to win against any possible line and giving the analysis for every possible line. They are completely different things and you are only showing your lack of an IQ by going on and on and on and on about it. You're the one making the wild assertions. I suppose after 

1. d4 ....Nf6
2. Qh5

you'll claim that Carlsen et al would be wrong to claim that as a win for black too. If not that, where do you draw the line? Where is the miraculous point where btickler and Elroch can suddenly tell the difference between "we don't know" and "it's a loss"?