Chess will never be solved, here's why

What do you really mean by solving chess?
Are you trying to solve it like a puzzle, putting the pieces together?

Are you trying to find out which move is the most accurate and will guarantee no disadvantage and improve your position as much as it can?

Actually, if you refer to the second question, then chess will not be fun anymore.

If each side cancels out each other's moves, it will be a draw repeatedly like tic tac toe games.

Of course, it could also be a game in which one position is always guaranteed to win.

I am bemused how you could think that is any sort of example of inductive thinking. It simply isn't.

In mathematics and related subjects there are theorems which start with a set of axioms and end with a proposition. They say that when the set of axioms is true, the proposition is true.  I stated that chess satisfies a certain set of axioms defining a class of games, and thus all theorems that can be proven from those axioms are true about chess.

None of this involves induction: it is a very fundamental fact about deductive knowledge in general. It could itself be proven in a formal manner, as a theorem of mathematical logic.

Solving chess, as for solving any game, is already defined.  There's no ambiguity, choice or interpretation involved.

It is actually a good question, I'll post a fuller answer later.

For the present, you say

Are you trying to find out which move is the most accurate and will guarantee no disadvantage and improve your position as much as it can?

No.

Accuracy is not generally required in chess. If you take forty nine moves to mate with king and queen against a king, the rules don't reward you any less than if you do it in the minimum number of moves (so long as you don't run out of time, but that, together with the tide, can wait till I post a fuller answer).

Also, you cannot make a move that theoretically improves your position; only your opponent can do that. 

What if one side is guaranteed to win simply because of who moves first? Your last statement technically means that.

@SpaceVoidSuperEvil

If you're winning you can't be any better off whatever you move; if you have a move that wins that means you were already winning and if all moves leave you in the sh*t that means you're in the sh*t already.

If, as you postulate, one side is guaranteed to win simply because of who moves first, that's the first case.

But it's usually quite easy to theoretically improve your opponent's position. That's what practical chess is all about. Also in practical chess it is quite often possible to improve the perceived evaluation of your position by a move. That's because nobody's perceived evaluations of win draw or loss consistently match the theoretical evaluations (excepting @tygxc and @Optimissed, of course). 

@4775
"What if one side is guaranteed to win simply because of who moves first?"
++ The extra tempo of the first move is worth 0.33 pawn and is not enough to win.
In a drawn position you have at least one good move that keeps the draw,
and errors (?) that turn the draw into a loss.
In a won position you have at least one good move that wins,
errors (?) that turn the win back to a draw,
and blunders or double errors (??) that turn the win into a loss.

Q: do engines ever evaluate a position that is winning as 0.33?

A: yes, certainly. Even in tiny samples you can find examples of where engines get it wrong, by losing from a position with evaluation 0.33 (or -0.33)

@4782

"Even in tiny samples you can find examples of where engines get it wrong, by losing from a position with evaluation 0.33 (or -0.33)"
++ Engines err, otherwise they would draw 100% and not 99%. Whenever an engine game from the initial position is decisive, it is a decisive game starting from +0.33. It is rare for an engine game to be decisive. That is why in TCEC they now impose slightly unbalanced openings, so as to start around +0.5 or -0.5.

Be quick!

Not to mention drawing from a position with evaluation -25.5.

Thanks for making me smile.

My statement was an example of a fundamental rule of logic. The general version is:

If (all things with property P have property Q) and (X has property P) then (X has property Q)

P was the set of finite deterministic games of perfect information, X was chess, and P was any chosen theorem about games of class P.

Am I right to give you the credit for being able to see this is deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning?

The game of basic chess is a mathematical object (indeed a finite, combinatorial object describable as a sort of directed graph of all legal positions), an example of a class of games about which there are theorems.

There is no approximation at all in the application of theorems of the theory of finite games. I feel you should be able to understand this.

is there a cheating happening here? cause i had disconnection problem several times specially when winning . .. blitz 5 mins

Yes. Somehow replaced it with a new response and didn't think it worth reinstating since you'd copied it anyway. 

Ummm, no.  I posted it well beforehand, you forgot it later, then predicted it back to me (which I neither confirmed nor denied, by the way, 3pts or otherwise).

This is probably why you also believe you have psychic predictive powers.

You got the weird part right, sort of.

Just to check, is there a single person (other than @Optimissed) who bizarrely thinks that the fact that general theorems about games of the class to which chess belongs applies to chess is "inductive" rather than a logical deduction?

If there is, I would politely advise them to get a better understanding of the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Any reputable source will do. (I assume that @Optimissed himself is too pig-headed to take that advice, so is doomed to remain wrong. I wish I could be more optimistic ).

Modus Ponens

Have you ever considered that people mess with your head because you respond to "messages out of the blue" and are an easy target?

Fascinating.  Have you asked them their opinion on the royal family?  Better make use of this topical resource while they are deigning to give you free information ...