Chess will never be solved, here's why

I'm mostly tolerant of your trolling because I'm aware its due to something you can't control.

You know by now I don't really rate your criticisms of what I write as worthy of being taken seriously. That's just my opinion, though. You might be able to change it by intelligently addressing the reasons why I maintain that you and others are conflating game theory with solving chess and that's the main reason you stick to the ridiculous definitions which include "semi-weak" solutions, etc. It's my opinion that no-one here is capable of thinking very clearly. Anyone who could, would get what I'm talking about but you don't. That's your problem, in the plural.

It's still no excuse for your trolling. It's a reaction to it, as a matter of fact.

"Personally I am 100% sure that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses."

Not going to comment on the chess line here, but if you were actually 100% sure of it, you would be demonstrating it, not asserting it.

I don't like to say this, of course, but here here goes.

I'm sure the sun will rise tomorrow but I can't demonstrate it today.
I'm sure you're a bit thick but I can't demonstrate it because you have control over what you write.

You aren't 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow, then.  The same applies to Ba6.

The second sentence is a labored and not very successful attempt to equate the two.  Why would my writing anything under the sun curtail your ability to demonstrate something you are absolutely sure of?

As for your pretense of not wanting to say something that you are choosing to say...well, anyone can see right through that.

No, it isn't a pretence and also, you aren't "anyone", as can be deduced from your choosing to continue with your efforts to prove that your efforts aren't in vain.

OK try this. You and Elroch seem to be united in the idea that, although we know that
1.d4 d5
2. Ba6 
loses for white ... that is, it will be a forced loss, anyone who claims it to be a forced loss isn't correct, because "how do we know since it hasn't been proven".

Firstly, I'm completely confident that it has been analysed to a forced win for black but the forcing sequence wasn't recorded because there are actually millions of forcing sequences, each one resulting in a win for black.

This insistence that it hasn't been "proven" is infantile, because of course it will have been done by someone and we can rest assured that it no forced win had been found, out of the millions of different lines available, we'd know about it.

I won't comment about chess ability because I understand that the two of you are trying to make a point, however puerile. I will explain this, however. Whether or not one might choose to assert that it's a forced win isn't down to knowledge but to personality type. The fact that neither you nor Elroch have pointed that out points to the high probability that neither of you have managed to work that out.

No-one is more right than the other in choosing to assert or not to assert that it's a win for black. Both of you, however, fall into error by asserting that someone else is wrong to do so.

No, it isn't a pretence and also, you aren't "anyone", as can be deduced from your choosing to continue with your efforts to prove that your efforts aren't in vain. I am personally sure the sun will rise tomorrow. I'd stake my life on it.

OK try this. You and Elroch seem to be united in the idea that, although we know that
1.d4 d5
2. Ba6 
loses for white ... that is, it will be a forced loss, anyone who claims it to be a forced loss isn't correct, because "how do we know since it hasn't been proven".

Firstly, I'm completely confident that it has been analysed to a forced win for black but the forcing sequence wasn't recorded because there are actually millions of forcing sequences, each one resulting in a win for black.

This insistence that it hasn't been "proven" is infantile, because of course it will have been done by someone and we can rest assured that if no forced win had been found, out of the millions of different lines available, we'd know about it.

I won't comment about chess ability because I understand that the two of you are trying to make a point, however puerile or perverse. I will explain this, however. Whether or not one might choose to assert that it's a forced win isn't down to knowledge but to personality type. The fact that neither you nor Elroch have pointed that out indicates a high probability that neither of you have managed to work it out.

No-one is more right than the other in choosing to assert or not to assert that it's a win for black. Both of you, however, fall into error by asserting that someone else is wrong to do so.

I haven't actually said anything about the Ba6 line itself or the viability of any of the 3 possible outcomes.  I have only talked about your imprecision in asserting that you are 100% sure of something that you quite obviously are not 100% sure of.  Every external reference to analysis that has not happened about a "million lines" that is more like 10^30+ lines is a testament to your knowledge of the fact that you are *not* 100% sure. 

So, why not just stop stating it that way?   It's ego-driven, and erroneous.   Nobody on this planet is 100% sure that e4 e5 Ba6 is a win for black.  Nobody.

@Optimissed

Suggest you try playing Black from the position against SF15 with tournament time controls and post your win. Should happen first go if you know in any useful sense that it's a win.

Of course SF15 is light years from perfect, but it would be a start.

An excellent start, actually...which is why it will never happen (not unassisted, anyway).

     All of us commenting here are admittedly inferior judges of what the best moves, systems, plans, strategies, openings, whatever, might be in chess. We have all proved this by not winning every game we have played and cruising to the world championship. There are many, many players far superior to us.

     And all of those superior players are demonstrably inferior to the best computer programs in existence today. And these programs are admittedly imperfect; witness the fact that today's programs easily outperform those of 10 years ago, and no one doubts that today's best programs will be outclassed dinosaurs 10 years from now.

     The problem with the computer analysis of chess is the fact that the criteria used to evaluate positions however many moves ahead are based on human concepts of good and bad features. The precise values of different features in different positions continues to advance but is not yet foolproof.

     As a result, any method of trimming the amount of analysis necessary to solve chess is guaranteed to contain flaws and lead to somewhat inaccurate conclusions. The only 100% reliable solution is brute force calculation of all possible lines of play. The many explanations here and in similar forums as to the impossible immensity of this task convinces me that a quick solution is EXTREMELY unlikely, but saying that it can NEVER be done flies in the face of the history of human ingenuity and unforeseen revolutionary technological breakthroughs.

     I'm old enough that I doubt I will ever see chess solved but I do have faith that someday it will happen.

Are you claiming it is not a win? Perhaps you have no experience of the Modern Benoni positions where black plays Na6 and white incorrectly takes Bxa6, doubling black's pawns on the a file. It's a plus for black. Here, it's a similar position and black is a piece up. On move two.

You and MAR are far from being strong players. You are evidently even weaker than I imagined. Neither of you are competent to comment on this.

It's not chess ability that is relevant here. It appears it can be a psychological barrier to some. Rather some understanding of combinatorics and probability theory is needed.

Most people are incapable of understanding the subtlety that something may be close enough to certain to make it entirely sensible to be certain of it, without it really being so.

For example, if someone said a computer would completely randomly pick a number between 1 and a trillion minus 1 and asked would it be a number you picked (by writing down 12 digits of your choice), you could safely bet your life on it not matching. But while that bet might be reasonable, certainty would be incorrect.

The same is true when the number has 24 digits. Or 48. The probability of a match is so small it is perfectly reasonable to view it as zero. But anyone with adequate understanding can see it is not zero.

The value of 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 is actually very like that. It is conceivable that multiple flukes (that occur in parts of the analysis tree from this position that we have not looked at) conspire to make the result different to what we are sure of. The probability is low, extremely low (but more than 1 in 10^48, IMO). And this probability does not become zero until thorough analysis has been performed and we have eliminated the possibility of a weird fluke.

Just like for the example of guessing a 24 digit number, I can be absolutely certain that a view that the probability of being right is zero is incorrect. It's actually a small positive number, not zero.

[On an aside, it is fair to say that all scientific knowledge falls into this category of not quite certain. This is a consequence of the inductive way it is derived.  With logical reasoning, it is in principle possible to reach certain conclusions but a pedant might say this relies on a belief that no-one has made a mistake. I can't argue with this, but I can ignore it when I consider the conceptual difference!]

@Optimissed

Not what I suggested (no game).

My comment was about what you actually mean by "know". You can't really simultaneously maintain you "know" 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 is a forced win for Black and not be able to win from the position as Black against any opposition, not with any useful meaning of the word "know" (unless you have discovered an ultra weak solution for the position, which I think we can discount).

Can you win from the position against any opposition? If so you can win against SF15 (which is also far from being a strong player). If you post your game as I suggested then that would at least give you some credibility.

Otherwise explain what is the difference between your meaning of the word "know" and what most other people refer to as "think". 

Personally, I think it's about chess ability.

Can you prove that it isn't, since deductive proofs so delight you?

Says you.

But I can know that I'm going to go outside and pick a flower in ten minutes. I couldn't describe my route exactly to the millimetre or tell you which flower I shall pick. That doesn't alter the fact that I shall pick a flower.

I could definitely win the position against any opposition at daily 3-day. If I think I could do that, how about Magnus Carlsen? You fail to recall that this is about best play and that needn't be my best play.

You can't know anything of the sort.

Your maiden aunt might ring up in two minutes who never wants to ring off, some kids might have run off with all the flowers when you get outside or you could be struck by lightning as soon as you open the door. 

In fact 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6 may be a safer bet. But you don't actually know.

I do know. You may not know, because you're a very weak player.