Chess will never be solved, here's why

There is a weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule that is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule. You have not presented a method that will arrive at one.

It's certainly not true that any weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule.

You've so far produced only vague suggestions of a method that will arrive at neither (for logical reasons, not just because it won't be finished by teatime).

@6144

"There is a weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule that is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule." ++ Yes indeed.

"a method that will arrive at one"
++ I have presented a method that arrives at both at the same time.
Start from a drawn ICCF WC game, e.g. this one.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164320

It starts from the initial position and ends in a perpetual check i.e. a 3-fold repetition draw.
Analyse 3 alternatives for 71 Kh3. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 70 Kg2. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 69 Kh3. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 68 Kh2. Do they draw too?
Continue like that until you meet another ICCF WC draw.
Then treat the other ICCF WC draws in the same way.

Then there is a strategy that draws for black gainst any white opposition and chess is weakly solved, with or without the 50-moves rule.

Prize competition

Find as many errors as possible in the quoted text.

The one who finds the most will receive a magnificent trophy.

OK I start with your game (which didn't end in a triple repetition) and follow your pseudocode..

The events in the game were

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 c5 9.Nf3 Qc7 10.Be2 b6 11.O-O Bb7 12.Bb2 Nc6 13.c4 Rfd8 14.Rc1 Rac8 15.Re1 Ne7 16.Ne5 Ng6 17.Nd3 h6 18.Bf1 Qe7 19.Qe2 Rd7 20.dxc5 Be4 21.Rcd1 Bxd3 22.Rxd3 Rxd3 23.Qxd3 Qxc5 24.Qd4 Qc6 25.Rd1 Nf8 26.Be2 N8d7 27.h3 Qc7 28.Qd3 Nc5 29.Qc2 Rd8 30.Rd4 Rd7 31.Bf3 Rd8 32.h4 Rd7 33.Qd1 Ne8 34.h5 Nf6 35.g3 Qc8 36.Kg2 Qc7 37.Bc3 Ne8 38.Qb1 Nd6 39.Rg4 f5 40.Rd4 Nde4 41.Bb4 Nf6 42.Qd1 e5 43.Rxd7 Qxd7 44.Bd5+ Nxd5 45.cxd5 Ne4 46.d6 Qc6 47.Kg1 Nf6 48.a4 Kh7 49.Ba3 Nd7 50.Bb2 Qc4 51.f4 e4 52.Be5 a6 53.Bd4 Qd5 54.Qe2 b5 55.axb5 axb5 56.Qb2 Qxd6 57.Qxb5 Qe6 58.Kg2 Kh8 59.Kh3 Kg8 60.Qa5 Kh7 61.Qb5 Kh8 62.Qb4 Qa6 63.Bxg7+ Kxg7 64.Qe7+ Kg8 65.Qxd7 Qf1+ 66.Kh2 Qf2+ 67.Kh3 Qf1+ 68.Kh2 Qe2+ 69.Kh3 Qxh5+ 70.Kg2 Qe2+ 71.Kh3 Qg4+ Draw agreed

Now I take 71.Kh3 and look for the subroutine "Analyse 3 alternatives". No show. Does not compute.

Could do better.

You say "Then there is a strategy that draws for black gainst any white opposition".

There may be. I don't know and neither do you.

What's definitely true is your pseudocode doesn't output one.

If I'm playing Black, what does it tell me to play against 1.a4?

Back to the validity of your basic calculation, I invited you here to "Show it or shut it". You have done neither so far. Do you plan to?

You first "wrong" is not necessarily valid. The conclusion is merely unproven. If, as you appear to "know", chess happens to be a draw (whichever version) then that would certainly follow from a deductive argument (though not from the rest of what @tygxc posts). It could be rather a long deductive argument.

I'm accepting the first one as it clearly referred to a purported following deductive argument. Of course nothing that could be mistaken for a deductive argument by a sleeping blind man followed.

This is an excellent and logically unassailable argument against players that "know" chess is a forced draw .  Kudos.

I like the fact that the last time @tygxc mentioned a "deductive argument" he immediately moved on to blatantly inductive imprecise ideas such as those about the value of tempos, as if they were axioms.

[Isn't your post about his argument, not MAR's?]

It wouldn't have been called the North pole if it was in Timbuctu. (Or more correctly Timbuctu would have been to the North if that was where it was.)

     In 1257 most "knowledgeable experts" didn't know that the earth revolved on it's axis and orbited the sun. And if this nameless "explorer" went north from Poland to get to Timbuktu I wouldn't put much stock in anything they thought.

     As usual, no defence to the actual statement. Why couldn't someone discover America without knowing that the earth was round? The Phoenicians never discovered America. They were too afraid of getting lost forever at sea to venture out of sight of land. It took them many centuries to learn that they could sail straight from (modern) Tunisia to Sicily. Still, they were the first people from the "civilized" ancient fertile crescent to discover (modern) Spain.

     What does the earth being flat or spherical have to do with the Phoenicians' never discovering America? I didn't mention anyone thinking the earth was flat, that's just something unrelated you thought up. Try to pay more attention to what others actually say before replying.

     There is no Gaelic language spoken in South America. There is no evidence of Phoenicians discovering America, let alone getting all the way to the west coast of South America. What possible link could there be between Welsh speakers and Phoenicians?

     You're the one who fails to understand commerce. Why would anyone in that era sail from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere for commercial purposes? In the ships they had, provisions for the voyage would have taken up all storage space. 

     A voyage from Tunis to Sicily along the coast would have taken them many months (and a lot of extra cost) and could not have been done safely as it would have involved travel through hostile territory.

     Making up "facts" like nameless Polish explorers and Welshmen in ancient America, then calling others "nutcases" for pointing that out is evidence of a limited understanding of history and civil discourse.

     I see, when you can't think of a reply it's time to attack others. If you know of ANY evidence of Phoenician presence in America, cite it. Incidentally, the Vikings' presence in North America was well known when I was a child, and I am older than you. 

     Just noticed your last post. There was NO trade in ancient times between Europe/Africa/Asia and America. Yes, Hanno the Navigator did sail quite a way (arguments go on over just how far) down the west coast of Africa--a feat FAR different than crossing thousands of miles of open ocean to reach America.

     Britain was likely known to the Phoenicians from traders from the north who came bearing tin to their city of Gades (modern Cadiz). This was considerably earlier than the Celtic incursions into the British Isles.

     If you don't wish to be corrected, don't peddle misinformation. Only one person here is angrily attacking anyone. At least you finally admit you just make things up. 

Definitely need a citation for this one...

     Again, you weren't paying attention. I wrote Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. What would trade between the eastern and western Mediterranean have to do with Phoenicians in America? 

     There is a recent theory that Celts originated as a linguistic group in Britain around 3000-2500 BC, but of course no proof can exist as no written language, or written mention of such a language, is earlier that 400 BC. Archeological evidence of Celtic culture--in Gaul, as Romans and Greeks called Celts--not Britain dates from no earlier than 800 BC.

     Byblos, also called Jubayl and Jebeil, has been continuously populated since 5000 BC. The Phoenicians founded Gades around 1800 BC. Gauls came south and were noticed by Mediterranean civilizations just prior to 500 BC. Phoenicia was conquered by Nebuchandnezzer in 550 BC and ceased to exist as an independent people. 

     Finally, the idea that any Celts that had reached the Americas would hold onto a clear enough version of their ancient language, and Welshmen 2000 years or more removed from their ancestral dialect also still spoke a reasonably close language, is exceedingly unlikely.