Chess will never be solved, here's why

The one advantage of Tygxc's misguided expertise is that unlike older threads with Vickalan and S23bog and Ponz, the arguments are about real theories.  It's like the difference between having to explain to someone that you can't just seed clouds to end a drought., vs. trying to explain that rain dances do not produce rain.

When I joined Chess.com, my first impression of this thread was "echo chamber" but after a while, you begin to see personalities emerge and how they function on an intellectual level. Although I can loosely follow what is being discussed, I have no inclination either way.

I just find the word battles intriguing...

I wouldn't know.....but to me, more important than any of that....tygxc has taken a fair amount of criticism for his arguments. Maybe it's entirely deserved.....but through it all, he has remained a class act, holding steadfast to his theory and not responding in kind even when the criticism has crossed some lines. No judgement here on that, but kudos to tygxc for the level at which he's conducting himself and the dignity he's maintained. We could use more of that here. 

I wish I could say I'm smart enough to assess whether tygxc is right or not, but right or wrong, I'm impressed with his arguments.....and the effort he's made to present them. I could say that about several others as well. 

Carry on.

Is this some example of you *not* wasting your life?  Because it seems a little forced.

That is the appropriate response to most, if not all,  personal criticism. Criticism of his arguments is fair game. 

you do make a point...

Anyone can make a point. That doesn't mean he's right. 

The question isn't "Can humans walk on Mars?". The real question is "Can humans devise the technology to get them to Mars safely?".  No one can say that's possible FOR SURE until it's proven possible. I understand there's much reason to believe we could, but it's not a certainty. That technology may be beyond human capability. Unlikely, I suppose, but we don't know yet. 
Counter arguments?

@5854

You still do not understand.

"a single strong solution might say "If white, play 1.e4. If black respond to 1.d4 with 1. Nf6", and thus never deal with 1. d4 f5." ++ No, that is a weak solution.

"providing the value for every move in every position is such a natural one, it deserves its own term." ++ No, that is a strong solution.

Game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally.

Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined.

Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.

Strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.
1 d4 f5? is a legal position and thus is part of a strong solution just like 1 g4? or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?.

@5856

"At some point chess will be solved." ++ Yes.

"How?" ++ Starting from ICCF WC draws analyse 3 alternatives per move until the 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition draw.

"Why?" ++ It is human nature to explore things.

"When?" ++ 5 years after allocation of resources: 3 million $.

"Where?" ++ Somewhere.

"By whom?" ++ By 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters.

"By what means?" ++ By 3 cloud engines of a billion positions / s each.

"Who cares?" ++ All chess players.

"I wont be around to see it." ++ You probably will.

"its years away form what we can do" ++ Yes: 5 years.

No. Rigorous definitions of mathematical concepts (such as "weak solution") are just that - rigorous definitions, expressible within a formal system.

Your spiel is obfuscation rather than relevant.

Game theory unquestionably does apply to all the forms of chess we are discussing here (all theorems whose conditions are satisfied).

Technically, basic chess falls into a different category to those versions with automatic repetition or move-count drawing rules (so do all versions of chess without automatic repetition or ply-without-irreversible-move rules). This is because basic chess games can be infinite. But all fall within game theory in general (and its subfield, games of perfect information).

@5881

"Game theory unquestionably does apply to all the forms of chess"
++ Yes. 'Games solved: Now and in the future' clearly applies to solving chess.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527 

People keep confusing weakly solved and strongly solved.

Is The Classical Chess Board Setup Flawless? Here's why I ask, and the answer may not be black or white, but both black and white: Why should white's kingside castling be to the right, but black's to the left? I see an unevenness in the game here. But if kings faced queens, both sides would castle perfectly even. It's not black or white . . . If two right-handed, or two left-handed players play, why should kings not face queens, and kingside castling be perfectly even (to the same side from each player's perspective?) Here are my thoughts on it: Let's say two armed men, both right-handed, or both left-handed, face each other, and both are carrying both a shield and a sword. When they face each other, will swords face swords, or will swords face shields? But let's say a left-handed man faces a right-handed man, will swords then face shields, or will swords face swords and shields face shields? Or if two couples, two kings and queens, walk up to one another, both having their partner on the same side, when they face each other, will kings face kings, or will they face the queens directly? Now why one cannot just shoot down what I'm asking about is because a game like chess involves two people. A car resembles a human in many ways because it is designed to be used by a human and thus needs to mirror many things the human driver's body performs. So a car has 'eyes' (lights), a 'mouth' (the horn), a 'heart' (the engine), 'blood' (the fuel), 'feet' (the wheels), 'eyelids' (windscreen wipers) etc... In the same way, chess is a reflection of the players. So if two right-handed, or two left-handed players play, why should the classical board setup not be as mentioned earlier, in view of these arguments? But if a left-handed player plays a right-handed player, I'd leave it just as it is. Yet even so, black should still have the chance to move first. Hmmm.... Your thoughts?

I didn't accept your argument that game theory cannot apply to chess; I accepted only your conclusion. 

I did also point that out earlier.

With some changes to the laws  (multiple possible ways) it can be turned into a two player zero sum game with perfect information, when game theory does apply.

A solution of chess with some such changes is what most posters are discussing. (An exception being @tygxc who wants the 50 move rule to simultaneouly apply and not apply, so is not talking about a possible game at all.)

@5884
"@tygxc who wants the 50 move rule to simultaneouly apply and not apply"
++ No, the 50 moves rule plays no role at all in solving chess. Ignore it.
The 3-fold repetition rule however is essential.

So is the rule in or out in the game you're offering to solve? It pays to know what the rules are before you start trying to solve a game.

You say here

We are talking about solving chess, i.e. the game with all its Laws of Chess.

So we could be forgiven for assuming the 50 move rule is to be included (along with the TCEC win and draw rules and simultaneously optional tablebase adjudication at 7 men and no such adjudication etc, judging from the examples you give.)

Are simultaneous resignations allowed? Is an arbiter involved?

@5886
"the 50 move rule is to be included" ++ You can include it if you want: it plays no role.
The weak solution of chess without the 50-moves rule also applies with the 50-moves rule.

"TCEC win and draw rules" ++ Of course once the 7-men table base is reached the calculation stops and the result is retrieved from the 7-men table base.

That is perfectly reasonable for a weak solution, although the 7 piece tablebase is woefully inadequate to make solution practical.