Chess will never be solved, here's why

That's right, it doesn't mean that. Yet. But I think everyone agrees longer and longer forced mates are being found where they didn't exist before. And many of those forced wins only exist without the 50 move rule. 

From what I understand there are now forced mates in 500 moves. I suspect that in some of these forced mates there are sequences of moves that are longer than 50 moves with no capture. 

So I think as time goes by and computers get better and better at figuring this stuff out we will probably see longer and longer forced mates, with more and more pieces. I expect someday there will be forced mates in 900, or even much more. And eventually at least one of these incredibly complex positions can be forced from the opening position. 

Maybe. But one thing is for sure, people have a persistent habit of being very wrong. 

It seems like no matter the field, no matter who is involved, no matter the circumstances, there are always things being discovered that are the opposite of what was accepted as true. 

I think it takes a tremendous amount of faith to say "it has to be this way" when there is so much precedence that says otherwise. 

If we're going to disregard the rules that only exist to force every game to end in a reasonable timeframe, I'd love to see the collective world's computing power get stuck simulating a scenario in which both players move a knight out and back ad infinitum. As in, 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8....

#3735

"And many of those forced wins only exist without the 50 move rule." ++ Many forced wins with up to 7 men need more than 50 moves without capture or pawn move, and could be claimed as wins in ICCF correspondence, but such claims never happen: the positions never occur.

"we will probably see longer and longer forced mates, with more and more pieces"
++ You start with 16 pawns and 16 non-pawns. Pawns tend to move. Pieces tend to get traded. The 50 moves rule is never invoked with > 7 men in ICCF or in GM games. There is always a compelling reason to move a pawn or trade in a real game.

Wouldn't that be covered under the 3 fold repetition rule? It doesn't seem like that rule would make any difference in solving chess or not, the 50 move rule would make a difference though since some very complex positions require more than 50 moves to make the necessary progress. 

If we are talking about ICCF games or GM games, sure, chess will never be solved and it's probably a draw. But I was thinking about chess itself, without the relatively new rules meant to help people end games quicker. 

#3739
Here is a rare game where the 50-moves rule was invoked
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1710666 

No, the 3 move repetition rule stands because it can't affect the result of a game, given that anyone who repeats moves three times hasn't a clue what else to do. The 50 move rule is the one that, in order to assess chess in its pure form, must be disregarded.

This is not some original Star Trek episode where the computer ends up exploding because you asked it "what is love?".  It's incredibly easy to identify infinite repetitions, mark them as draws, and then proceed onwards.

#3737
The 3-fold repetition rule is fundamental and is a major drawing mechanism.
Here is an example from the ongoing ICCF World Championship.
It is 99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors.
At the end white is 2 pawns down, but forces the draw by perpetual check, i.e. forced 3-fold repetition.
https://iccf.com/game?id=1164309 

@bticklr good point about the repetition, it's obvious.

@IfPatriotGames

I believe mate in 500 (or more) is indeed possible, but only if one side made mistake earlier in the game (perhaps in move 3rd? or 33rd maybe?). 3 times repetition is there to terminate speculations (it could be freely 2 times for this purpose), I mean if you know you have a wining position there is no need to repeat the same position yet another time, you just proceed into the win without unnecessary repetitions.

Discussing about A-number-of moves-rule in any number (for the purposes of solving the game of chess) is pointless, it's just a fide rule put for a practical reasons and has nothing to do with the solution of the game itself.

I didn't say anything about exploding. Hanging up and requiring to be rebooted would be quite sufficient to satisfy my need for silly entertainment.

#3744
"I believe mate in 500 (or more) is indeed possible, but only if one side made mistake earlier"
++ Yes, that is right. Here is an example: win in 400 moves.

We can prove black made a mistake earlier.
Black has 2 dark square bishops, so one must be an underpromoted pawn. The only reason to underpromote to a bishop instead of a queen is to avoid stalemate, i.e. to avoid a draw. As the position is lost for black, black made a mistake to underpromote to a bishop. He should have promoted to a queen and then the win in 400 is not there.

I completely agree with the last point but when I've pointed it out previously, there are people who want to consider it part of chess. I say "want to" because it seems clear that all they wish to do is cause confusion. ie trolling.

If both sides play "correctly" it will be a draw on chess.com with an initial score of +0.64, but if, for example, by the end of the game the score remains +0.64, then this does not mean at all that White has won, it only means that it is more pleasant for him. If you play like people, and not like computers, then most likely White will win, since White is more pleasant to play purely psychologically. But even that is absolutely not accurate. As for the main question, it must be admitted that computers used to play weaker than people, or at least on an equal footing, but now computers can do almost everything, but they will hardly "solve" chess. There are too many positions! Identical games can be 5% and then mostly these are the games that are studied (I mean the children's mat and other traps at the beginning of the game) So chess will be solved when people play ALL possible positions and this will be possible only after 1000 years and more, and computers will not stand still and will help BECAUSE EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD IS DEVELOPING!!! Therefore, already in 1000 years chess will probably not exist because of the boringness of playing identical games. But perhaps in such a GREAT time they will improve and live

they change a lot

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

DO NOT USE GIANT FONTS.  YOUR OPINION SHOULD MAKE ITS OWN STATEMENT.

                                 Those who know me, know that
I never do giant fonts.

Yes, but people keep bringing it up. So it's constantly part of the conversation. I think the 50 move rule is just to speed up games where people don't have the ability to see far enough ahead. But computers do. If seem like every discussion about solving chess involves someone eventually saying "but the 50 move rule makes chess a draw".

I agree, it probably does. But I didn't bring that up, don't disagree, and is one of those answers to a question that was never asked. 

It's just a device to force games to finish within a few hours or, in the old days, within a few adjournments, based on the incorrect assumption that if you can't complete a forced mate within that time, then it doesn't exist. It can't alter the eventual outcome, which is a draw with best play. We can imagine that there's a forced win somewhere but there isn't the evidence for it. Nothing wrong with secret beliefs.

@IfPatriotGames , Och aye. You could be right but I believe it would not be like so. I'm pretty sure 50 moves rule has no effect on the final solution(s).

The solution is a draw either way, with or without that particular rule.

That rule could only help you to win a certain position where is more than 50 moves (rule) to win is needed, BUT in that game the mistake was already made and that particular position, therefore, is not a RELEVANT solution.