Chess will never be solved, here's why

Kasparov (exact quote) - "A machine will always remain a machine, that is to say a tool to help the player work and prepare. Never shall I be beaten by a machine!"

Sveshnikov (exact second-hand quote) - "Give me five years, good assistants and modern computers, and I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess"

tygx (paraphrased) - "chess players stronger than me are 100% reliable in their statements."

Well, Kasparov is definitely wrong in this one. Today any human player is beaten by machines.

Sveshnikov might be right but I think 5 years is an underestimation. Si far, king's gambit is the only opening that has been "solved", afaik.

Reliable does not mean correct, of course.

This Topic Question, does determine whether Chess is indeed solvable or not.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/pawns-only-game

The above determines the theoretical answer to this question.

If only all Pawns for both sides determines a win for White or Black or Both Sides, then a set up with all the pieces shouldn't make any difference.

Further Evidence, that Pawns, are indeed...,

THE SOULS of Chess!

That's not allowed, unfortunately, although it's extremely interesting, because it's an inductive proposition.

Wouldn't this do just as well?

or this perhaps?

Stronger than or equal.

Nope.

Because unlike the two positions you showed, the One I composed, is not shown yet, to be an automatic Draw.

Nice try though, Troll!

THREAD K*LLER.

@4731
"Si far, king's gambit is the only opening that has been "solved", afaik."
++ More than that. We have over 1000 perfect games with no errors from the ICCF WC Finals.

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

A strategy for the initial position to achieve the game-theoretic value of a draw against any opposition from white is to follow an ICCF WC Finals drawn game for as long as possible and as soon as white deviates to switch to the exhaustive analysis of said ICCF game.

So the problem boils down to analysing the > 1000 ICCF WC Finals draws
towards the 7-men endgame table base.

Ah, yes. Now you explain it, it makes sense.

But I think the answer is then just a double application of your remarkably original method of proof.

This is obviously a draw.

If only one file determines a draw, then, by your method, a set up with all the files shouldn't make any difference.

So this is also a draw.

And as you remarked; 

"If only all Pawns for both sides determines a win for White or Black or Both Sides, then a set up with all the pieces shouldn't make any difference."

So chess is solved. It's a draw.

(I've assumed "a win for Both Sides" means the same as "a draw".)

Hello Sir,

If The Only Pawns Game, end in a Win or Loss for one of the Sides, Or a Draw...

Then no maneuvering with the Pieces, even with the skills possessed by Capablanca should change this result.

Well, given that it's an Only Pawns game, that would seem reasonable. Presumably they're not allowed to promote if it's Only Pawns. Strictly speaking, the kings shouldn't be there.

200 years ago the pinnacle of technology was propelling a boat across a river with steam.

Right now I am spending less than 20 seconds to send electronic signals through thousands of miles of cables to convey a message that is available to the entirety of humanity.

200 years from now people will be embarrassed to learn that some of their ancestors thought a game like chess might never be solved. "Solve chess" is more likely to be a 7th grade computer science project than it is an insurmountable obstacle for the humans of 2222, let alone what we'll be capable of in the years beyond that.

No, there are real obstacles to that. It will never be entirely solved unless an algorithm is designed that is well beyond the present-day horizons of software design. Such an algorithm cannot be constructed by humans but it might be constructed by real A.I. if ever that is achieved.

This argument works for everything, and so also works for nothing .

If you put the horizon at a more foreseeable 50 years, we're not even remotely close even with the most optimistic advancements on the white board.  Heck, we'll be lucky to get past a 10-12 man tablebase by then.  While it is true that someone 200 years ago could not have predicted anything like our world today, it would still have been safe to say 200 years ago that mankind would not be colonizing other solar systems by the year 2000, and colonizing other solar systems is within the same realm of difficulty as traversing 10^44 positions and evaluating and storing the results.  Both would require mining the heck out of our asteroid belt, for example .

@4746
"we'll be lucky to get past a 10-12 man tablebase by then"
++ Strongly solving chess i.e. a 32-men table base is out of reach now.

Weakly solving Chess can be done in 5 years with existing computers.

No, it can't.  Around and around we go ...