Chess will never be solved, here's why

Game theory consists of understanding strategies, in order to solve real life situations, by modelling the real life situations as games and attributing scores to negative and positive outcomes. The r.l.s. is then played through as if it were a game and the strategies are tweaked to give the highest positive score at the end.

The only conceivable strategy in chess is to play the best moves and it cannot, at the moment, be simplified into a model game, except with algorithms which are already shown to be unsatisfactory, because they create error. That is due to the nature of chess as an exact reality, which adheres to the very precise and logical nature of the initial position and the rules.

Together, the initial position and the rules constitute the exact reality of chess, which cannot be simplified. Therefore, game theory cannot apply to chess and therefore, the "definitions" of bad ideas like "weakly", ultra-weakly", "semi-weakly" and "strongly" solving don't apply. Some foolish people have probably approached game theorists in the expectation that they can help "solve chess".

They can't, for the very simple reasons given and because chess cannot be reduced into a model of itself, without introducing error. No-one can refute this.

Prepping engines lines against other players is not solving anything, even if you let the engine run for months.  Everybody but you seems to grasp this.

The man is on another planet.

The Planet Of New Orleans

I did not.

But now you mentioned it, assuming you work for NASA and the military on their top secret project,  I would like to know more about where they are about at the moment - I always thought they are ahead.

@tygxc, do you not understand what happens when an imperfect player evaluates a position?

Sometimes they are wrong. And I mean completely wrong - wrong enough to have the wrong belief about what the correct result is. This happens in every decisive game.

All available sources of opinions are imperfect and can be completely wrong. You are proclaiming that they never are, which is simply an error.  It's a good bet that on an individual position, a very strong player is correct in their evaluation. It is a good bet for several such positions. It becomes a pretty shaky bet for a lot of positions - you don't need that many before the probability that the player is wrong at least once is high. With enough positions, it becomes almost certain the player is wrong some time.

Pot calling the kettle?

You're the one that continues to assert the Syzygy tablebases strongly solve 7 man chess even after it's explained to you with examples why they don't.

@4108

"what happens when an imperfect player evaluates a position?"
++ Neither the player nor the engine evaluates the position,
the 7-men endgame table base evaluates the position and it is perfect.

"This happens in every decisive game." ++ Yes, every decisive game has some error.

"All available sources of opinions are imperfect and can be completely wrong."
++ Yes that is true, but some absolute statements are sure not to be wrong.
Certain endgames with opposite colored bishops are drawn.
1 a4 cannot be a better move than 1 e4 or 1 d4
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white

"It's a good bet that on an individual position, a very strong player is correct in their evaluation."
++ I even calculated that probability.
If you let the 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine run for 17 s, or a desktop for 4.7 hours, then the absolutely correct move will be among the top 4 engine moves in all but 1 case in 10^20.

this forum is going till 5k posts which consists nothing but trash

Sorry you had a (probably involuntary) break in "screen time", but don't take it out on others...

Thats absurd comes out of the condition of the game or checkmate. If we dont accept the draw as a solution in chess. Some french champions deluded by their opening are trying to make legal the stalemate confito

trying to make legal the stalemate condition as a winning end. That resolvef all abdurds of chess engines mess.

I bet it doesn't stop then.

You are right to be confident. You are wrong to be certain.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white

A more extreme example of the same.

Elroch, this is where you fall flat. Sticking to this principle of "we cannot know anything" is as wrong in principle as it's wrong in practice. White giving away a bishop on the second move of a game loses by force and we can know that.

One could equally criticise you for your own certainty, after all. You condemn yourself, except in the eyes of a nihilist. Your own insistence that tygxc is wrong fails to your own principles. It's too much a mixed message.

At best, all you're doing is pushing a philosophical standpoint of extreme relativism, which I certainly would not countenance, because it lacks intrinsic balance. In essence it's dictatorial, like someone telling another person that agnosticism is the only correct, philosophical standpoint. Doing that would show someone in a poor light, when it was evident that they didn't apply their own dictum to themselves.

You would be better trying to show tygxc that he's incorrect on the subject of solving chess in five years using human guidance for engine analysis by using practical arguments, like I did, because an argument based on the idea of "we cannot know anything" may be considered to fail. That's because it also appeals to the idea of definite knowledge ..... in this case, to the idea that we cannot know anything. Such an idea is therefore false. "We cannot know anything" is no less an assumption than the assumption it aims to refute, even though it may seem to be an assumption that demonstrates philosophical expertise. However, It's too easy to attack and refute.

The argument you made previously is correct and sufficient. It was that human analysis, considering thousands of positions quickly, would be bound to cause errors. That's completely sound, sufficient and irrefutable. We cannot know that they would not make errors, so therefore that proposed method is incorrect. That is beyond doubt.

To return to original post, what does "Chess being solved" even mean?

Is it finding the best move for every possible position?

@Ralphmcm, there are a few distinct types of solution. Here it has been generally acknowledged while we would be interested find an "ultra-weak solution" (proving what the result of chess with perfect play is, but failing to exhibit strategies to achieve it) but that it is extremely unlikely that a useful one exists, and have focussed almost entirely on the notion of a "weak solution". This consists of a complete, practical strategy for each player that guarantees getting the theoretical result. 

Part of this (and in practice achieved simultaneously, as for checkers) is to prove what the result of chess is with best play by both sides.

ok?

You really ought to study my posts more. Thee only viable strategy lies in "playing the best moves". These definitions have been written by idiots. They have no significance for the solution of chess.