Chess will never be solved, here's why

@5543
"Induction from a tiny sample of imperfect examples"
++ Induction from over 1000 perfect games with optimal play from both sides: ICCF WC Finals draws. Also from millions of human and engine games. Also from common sense.
It is possible to artificially construct a game that reaches a 7-men position with castling right,
but it is sure that it is not with optimal play from both sides.

Induction from a tiny sample of of imperfect examples that don't necessarily use the same rules and are in many or most cases terminated by an inductive imperfect evaluation even.

Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

If you do that we can all concentrate on the topic instead of discussing your proposals.

This is not helpful. I threw in the "Because I said so" as an analogy, and THAT is what you choose to respond to?  How about the part where you say "I know, because I know, because every serious chess player knows, because Grand Masters know."  That's how you know? My point, which you clearly missed, was that it's not enough to say "I know" without some supporting evidence. Maybe you feel you've already provided that, but if so, you could have cited it as a reference. But your statement was, prima facie, weak. 

You didn't answer my question.

Incidentally still no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

Once you've done that we can stop discussing your proposal.

It doesn't work.

Does the fact that it's not appeared mean you've already done it and reached the same conclusion, but you still post because you like to troll?

Especially not @Optimissed's.

I didn't assume "we cannot know that". I just needed more from tygxc than just "I know because everyone knows". He may very well know, and everyone may very well know, but I was looking for some evidence from him, since he was the one making the claim.

You obviously missed the point. 

I can post you a solution if we accept the definition of solution you are quoting. (I nearly said, "the definition of solution you are using", but of course that would be wrong.)

So again; why do you need the supercomputers?

Incidentally still no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

Once you've done that we can stop discussing your proposal.

It doesn't work.

Does the fact that it's not appeared mean you've already done it and reached the same conclusion, but you still post because you like to troll?

@5561
'Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success,' - Capablanca
++ 'Any material gain' is easy to see: 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses a bishop.
'Other things being equal' is more difficult to judge, that is why the good assistants should be ICCF (grand)masters. In this case it is easy: white has no compensation of any kind.
Thus white is lost. The provided analysis only confirms that: checkmate in 82.

@5567
"I have a batch of KRPP vs. KRP games running at the moment"
++ Interesting. Let us see.

Any of the outright beginners in the chess craze at my local that I mentioned earlier could have told you that. 

Their judgement has about the same chance of correctness.

@5566
"why do you need the supercomputers?"

++ To calculate all 10^17 relevant positions.
That takes 5 years on 3 engines of a billion positions per second.

My point was that according to your definition of "solve" none of that is necessary. Try again.

There's no "maybe" about it. He definitely didn't express himself the way I would have preferred. 

I didn't understand the post you're referring to. I try not to understand horsesh*t, otherwise I'd finish up as sane as you.

You had made a statement I happened to agree with, but without any cogent argument in support.

I made, in fact, a very minor point about the shambles of rules laid out in the FIDE laws.

Well, I have to say that I'm pleased to see politeness restored somewhere between Posts 5575 and 5577.  

Steinitz - "I can give God pawn and move and still win"

Since all statements by world chess champions are true (@tygxc assures me) the conclusion is clear.

Your proposal makes some assumptions I don't accept:

     Chess is inherently a draw. Ignoring ICCF won/lost games because "there must have a mistake" could miss a line of play that would indicate chess could be a win.

     That the "good assistants" could pinpoint the only three viable alternatives, and thinking there could only be three alternative moves. 

     Thinking the good assistants will always be correct in their assessment of what will be the "obvious" result. 

     Believing that present-day machines and programming cannot be relegated to "the dustbin of history" by any revolutionary advances that would make your five million years of calculation a joke.

     Again, just because I, or tygxc, or you, or Sveshnikov believes that chess is inherently a draw does NOT make it so. Starting with the idea that chess is a draw and achieving "not a proof or an attempted proof" but simply a reinforcement of our opinions is essentially worthless.

     If you had read the post you would realize that it was tygxc that used the phrase 'five million years" to pooh-pooh my belief that a more reliable proof is possible in the long run.