Chess will never be solved, here's why

@5888
"reasonable for a weak solution" ++ Only a weak solution is reasonable.

"the 7 piece tablebase is woefully inadequate" ++ The 7-men endgame table base suffices.
There are much more positions around 26 men than around 8 or 9 men.

I think it will be solved because white is one move ahead ?

@5890
"I think it will be solved because white is one move ahead"
++ Yes, white is one move ahead, but one tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Chess is a draw. It is harder to prove a draw than to prove a win.

Try playing the chess.com computer at max, showing the engine, with custom setup of kings facing queens. Perfect diagonal symmetry of the board. Look at what the engine says on the moves, the advantage and disadvantage scale . . .

Hello btw, everybody 👋 :P

Also btw, If any of you can get chess.com to please enable white to castle even when one plays under custom setup with kings facing queens, and you're white, that would be cool. I maintain it is a flaw in the system for white to not be able to do so under this specific custom setup. (I tried contacting support, but did not receive any finality on the validity of my request.)

Not really a flaw: if the king is not on the home square in a legal position in chess, castling rights have been lost. 

Admittedly, 960 goes beyond legal positions, with a different castling rule, so your wish could be another variant option.

I don't get this.....by your own admission, he is agreeing with you and yet you gratuitously insult him. Why would you do that? Do you actually think you're providing some kind of service to the community?
I have no intention of getting into a protracted debate over this. I likely won't post again....but hoped you would give it some thought. 

Merci, I appreciate all inputs! This setup is part of a new variant, enigma chess. But yes, I believe that chess has been solved and also hasn't been solved. The extent to which a human can comprehend and replicate the solution is limited, and so is the computer's. Chess has a solution, for sure. But brute computation whether by a human or computer is, in my opinion, not powerful enough to bring that infinitely perfect solution to the fore. Thus, the solution to chess, relative to a human, is simply: “The strongest computer is the solution.” Nobody can argue with the best computer, and that computer will just keep improving until every possible chess position is accounted for and analyzed in every possible way, and the best move forward is determined under every possible circumstance. That could take quite some time, 😄 In that regard, chess has not been solved. The computer has not solved chess relative to the infinitely perfect solution to chess which is out there. (These are just my personal thoughts.)

Five years in computer years is forever 😂 *joke

I believe that matter, mathematics itself, and time are all relative. Call it the theory of general relativity of everything. :peaceful

@5892

"whether the game you're offering to solve includes it"
++ The same weak solution without the 50-moves rule also applies with the 50-moves rule.

"what do you mean by "chess" when you offer to solve it?"
++ The game as described in the Laws of Chess. https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 

"my games here" ++ Your games are not of interest. ICCF WC draws are of interest.

"What rules are you going to assume?" ++ The Laws of Chess.

"Will it take more than 5 years?" ++ Weakly solving chess takes 5 years.

*almost everything. I believe also in the one thing that has always existed and is thus infinitely above everything else; that which can define everything else.

I don't pretend to know what's in your heart, but if I made that reference to someone..."a brief moment of semi-clarity".... I would definitely mean it as an insult.  

This is it in its simplest form: יהוה :peaceful

Can you point to any game theory texts that discuss games with no well defined yield?

According to @tygxc 

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

Those would allow for simultaneous resignation, or resignation simultaneously with making a move into a checkmate or dead position. They don't order the results in those cases in terms of yield to the players.

The players are also not made aware of the mood of the arbiter and since TCEC chess is also being discussed here the players are not made aware of when the server will crash and the TCEC win rule comes into force, so it's not a game of perfect information.

I would say game theory doesn't apply to all forms of chess we are discussing here.

All the papers on combinatorial games, several of which have been linked in discussions here.

Bear in mind that only the order of the results (win > draw > loss) is relevant for the analysis of the value of positions with optimal play. I feel you have in mind a different branch of game theory that deals with uncertainty if you think of this not being so.

I have ignored all the petty aspects of human chess and much else that is irrelevant to the theoretical analysis (as typical in game theory). Resignation and agreed draws are irrelevancies to evaluating optimal results. To the analysis it does not matter an iota whether a draw is agreed or another thousand moves are played to determine the same result. The only role of such actions in a theoretical treatment would be to acknowledge the correct result.