Chess will never be solved, here's why

This seems to be a bit of a silly conversation, since there is no doubt at all that 1. e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses. It should be beyond doubt and people ought to realise why it loses ... otherwise maybe they just can't play the game. This is where arguments from authority are perfectly reasonable.

Like, if you don't accept it loses, just go away because your comments might be worthless.

That's covered by @tygxc's impeccable logic; 

But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.

@4441
"But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way."
++ Yes, but in my proof it is true. Otherwise indicate how white could have played in a different way and not lost. You cannot.
In your 'proof' it is obvious that if white plays differently, i.e. does not blunder his rook, white does not lose.

@4443
I have proven that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82, so you have to falsify my proof.
You have 'proven' that 46...Rf2 is a forced checkmate in 10 and I have falsified your proof. 

The word is "refuted". Falsification is different. Falsification is all about the theoretical possibility that something can be refuted. If something cannot be falsified, that means that something isn't based on scientific evidence. Therefore there's no reason to believe that it's true in any case, so it doesn't need to be disproven.

The belief that 2. Ba6 doesn't necessarily lose isn't based on any evidence and therefore it can be discounted. That's because assumptions work both ways and these people calling those who are sure it loses "incorrect" are therefore incorrect themselves. This discussion shouldn't be happening, because the assumption that we cannot tell that Ba6 loses is only based on indirect evidence, perhaps that "something else" may not lose although we think it does.

Basically, Elroch is criticising us for using inductive evidence but his evidence is equally inductive. So he loses.

No you haven't falsified my proof. You've forgotten the bit in your method that says.

But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.

It's the main part of your proof and it applies equally to mine.

@4447
No, the main part of my proof is a sequence of good moves that lead to checkmate.
Your mocking proof is a sequence of bad moves, starting with blundering a rook.

White's 47 Re5+ was not a blunder.

It's a Black win, so White cannot blunder.

And why would I mock your proof? It is at least adequate for that purpose itself (if for little else).

@4449
49 Rxe5? blunders a rook, so the position is no black win but a draw.

I know it's a Black win.

47 Re5+ was not a blunder, but a subtle sacrifice by White to avoid worsening his lost position.

Actually, I am not criticising anyone for using inductive evidence. The problem is incompetent use of it, directly analogous to the reasoning "I have drawn 10 white balls from this urn, therefore the next ball I draw will be white". Also, when I use inductive reasoning, I don't disguise it, nor do I ever claim certainty. Certainty arises from deductive reasoning (such as the mathematics of Bayesian probability. Theorems are applied and conclusions follow.

Anyone who still has fully functioning cognition should be able to follow the following consideration of what can be achieved with inductive reasoning:

Suppose we want to conclude that the position 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6 is winning for white. We start from the time when we have just learnt the rules of chess by have no knowledge of the game.  (Anyone who thinks that at this point we have certain knowledge that the position is a loss for white is clearly delusional, so I hope we can agree that at this point the value of the position is uncertain, i.e. has a probability strictly between 0 and 1 of being a win for white). Take this time to be when chess had just been invented, if you like.

From that point we (the human species, assisted by computers) acquire evidence. This comes in units which we will break down right to the position level - empirical data about what happens in chess games.

At every step in the long path to wisdom by experience we start with a state of belief about whether the opening position is a win or not. This is quantified as a Bayesian probability - a state of belief. After an element of evidence, we have another state of belief about the proposition, quantified as another probability.

The issue is that those who believe we can be genuinely certain about the result of 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6 are obliged to say that at some time, the observation of a single new position - eg the end of a game with a result - caused an uncertain belief about the proposition to change to a certain one.

This is absurd except in one single case - when the last position completed a deductive proof that the result of the position is a win (just like the final step in the proof of the result of checkers, or the step that adds a new position to a tablebase, with a certain result (by all of the positions reachable from it in one move also being in the tablebase).

The idea that one elementary piece of inductive evidence could otherwise justify a change from uncertainty to certainty is misguided and simply wrong.

Of course, I understand that the likes of @tygx will simply ignore this truth and go on as before - the ability to improve understanding can be too limited.

[Note, this description is also a close approximation to the way an AI learns chess. At each point in time it has a model with millions of parameters and it revises those parameters based on any mismatch between its probabilistic model and experience.

It would be possible to repeat the development of AlphaZero with all games starting from the position after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6. This would generate a chess player able to play both sides of this position better than anyone else on the planet. This player would still never be certain about the result of the position of interest (barring issues with machine precision).]

There are different concepts which are referred to as "best", but the key one is that a second-best move leads to a worse result to the best move, assuming table-base optimal play thereafter.

Good morning,
I have a question:
Let’s say that there is a better shot for the whites at the first shot (if there is one?) and that the blacks and whites then play each time the best shot possible, it implies that it could be the perfect part and therefore that if they repeat another part and they replay each time the best moves, that this second part should be similar to the first. For this it is necessary that the first blow of the whites is identical to the first part. But how to determine that the first blow of the whites is 100% the best blow that exists?
Isn’t it the best shot that exists according to the response of blacks to this first shot?

Sorry, I may have deviated from your discussion, but I’m interested in understanding the logic of the best shots from the very beginning of the game, since the rest of the time depends on those first shots and mainly on the first shot of the whites.
Have a good evening

Incorrect.  Until you have reached some kind of theoretical threshold (and a dead GM's one line supposition is not it), you cannot make any assumptions.  Even if your hypothesis is believed by many at a particular point in time ("the earth is clearly flat" or "the earth is clearly not flat"), if you are going to follow the scientific method, then you are not at liberty to simply declare one position over the other no matter how likely you think it is.  Thank goodness you aren't in any position of making any actual scientific determinations, because your bias makes you the worst kind of scientist (well, barring one who makes pathogens for fun).

So, once and for all time...the onus is on you.  This argument evolved from the original discussion about whether chess is actually a forced draw, and you are arguing as if the two sides of this argument are:

- Chess is draw

- Chess is not a draw

...but that is not what is being argued.  The two consensus positions are actually:

- Chess is "known" to be a forced draw (Ponz, Tygxc, Optimissed)

- Chess is probably a forced draw, but no claims of certainty can be made

The latter position reflects current reality.  So, the onus must therefore always fall on the former to make a proof of their "knowledge".  The fact that arguments like "anyone knows that XYZ, or you are just a bad chess player" are being bandied about is a good indicator of the hollowness of that position.

You also seem to misunderstand how engines work.  They reach their evals by making assumptions of value based on their evolved valuations of chess (human-derived valuations for traditional engines, computer derived for newer engines, or a hybrid of the two...all are imperfect play) and pruning massive amounts of lines thereby.  This is why it is still possible for ICCF players to "suggest" different lines and suddenly come upon one that the engine values more highly after deep evaluation of the suggested move, where the engine had summarily discarded it before.

Because engine analysis is flawed, and can't be used as proof of perfect play.  

I don't see that, since there are three game results possible. A second best move may lead to the SAME result as the best one.

@4454
"the key one is that a second-best move leads to a worse result to the best move, assuming table-base optimal play thereafter."
++ No. There may be and usually are several good moves, that lead to the same result.