Chess will never be solved, here's why

     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.

Page 1:

Utter nonsense about what solving a game means.

Page 310:

Discussion about international trade 3000 years ago.

     I'm sure you know more about British history than I do. I'm not familiar with a lot of the ancient history you mention, though I do notice that different archeologists and historians have different opinions. 

     Archeologists at the British Natural History Museum believe that the "Beaker People" who came to the British Isles were migrants from the steppes of Asia who had settled in Central Europe, adopted the Beaker culture (that originated in Iberia) and came to Britain around 2500 BC. Professor David Reich of Harvard led a massive DNA study that showed the newcomers almost entirely wiped out the earlier inhabitants. (summary published in Nature magazine) 

     Celtic culture probably started developing in northern Europe before 1000 BC, but the oldest archeological evidence comes from around 700 BC in Hallstadt Austria. (see Encyclopedia Britannica) Those Celts, living in modern Bavaria-to-Bohemia, were some of the first North Europeans to enter the Iron Age, and they quickly became masters of their kinsmen. They invaded Italy (where they occupied the Po valley and the north end of the peninsula) and Greece (repulsed after plundering expeditions, a large group settled in Anatolia).  

     Further north, a longer Celtic mass migration from (modern) France into Britain (1000-800 BC)  brought enough new blood into the islands to make the DNA mix about 50/50 (previously mentioned study). These Celts most likely became closely linked with their continental kinsmen by the Hallstadt people. When the Romans came to Britain they called the inhabitants of Southwest England Volcae, the word they used for all who spoke Celtic languages, because they had the same language and culture as the Celts they knew in Gaul.

     Julius Caesar made a treaty with these people, and they were the ones that Emperor Claudius made the first Britons to be conquered and brought into the Roman Empire. Knowing how imprecise the Romans were about everything outside of money and power, they probably just called everyone in England Celts, but there were certainly plenty of Celts in the population of the island.

     Interesting as all this might be, and recognizing that varied theories concerning the ethnicity of prehistoric Britons, elaborately constructed on little substantial evidence, often contradict each other, it seems clear to me that at the time of Phoenician contact with people from Britain (1800-550 BC) there were no Welsh-speakers around to join any Phoenician expedition to America and leave descendants whose speech Welshmen could understand some 2000 or more years later.

@6191

"Page 1: Utter nonsense about what solving a game means.
Page 310: Discussion about international trade 3000 years ago."
++ Yes, trolls have been ridiculing and then spamming off-topic again. Back on topic.

Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
The game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally.

A strategy can be moves like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination.

There is ample evidence that the game theoretic value of Chess is a draw.

There is inductive evidence from millions of human and engine games, especially from the ICCF world championship, with games > 99% sure to be optimal play from both sides.

There is also a deductive argument.
To win a game 1 pawn needs to queen.
3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn.
'Should the opponent offer any material, even a Pawn, which in your estimation you may capture without danger, it is advisable to take the offered piece, even if as a result full development is retarded for one or two moves. If as a result of the capture full development will be retarded more than two moves, then it is doubtful whether the capture should be made. It might be risked with the White pieces but never with the Black, except on very rare occasions.' 
- Capablanca
1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Chess is a draw.

Strongly solved is being used for a game for which
such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.
For Chess this means a 32-men table base with 10^44 legal positions,
thus 10^44 nanoseconds of time and 10^44 bits of storage, not feasible now.
That leaves only weakly solving as feasible with 10^17 relevant positions, estimated in 2 ways.

1. Top down. Starting from the 10^44 legal positions none of the 56011 legal positions of a sample of 1 million can result from optimal play by both sides. A better estimate is Gourion's 10^37. In a sample of 1000 none can result from optimal play by both sides either. That leaves 10^32 sensible positions. Checkers has been weakly solved with 10^14 positions and Losing Chess with 10^9 positions. By analogy that leaves 10^17 positions relevant for weakly solving Chess.
2. Bottom up. Consider analysis with width w = 4 (derived from AlphaZero) and depth d = 39 average from ICCF WC games. First assume no transpositions for an upper bound U of
   U = 1 + w + w² + w³ + ... + w^d = (w^(d + 1) - 1) / (w - 1) = (4^40 - 1) / (4 - 1) = 4*10^23
   Now assume full transpositions for a lower bound L of
   L = 1 + w/1! + w²/2! + w³/3! + ... = e^w = e^4 = 54
   The lower bound is much too low and the upper bound is much too high.
   For an estimate E take the geometric mean of both:
   E = Sqrt (L * U) = Sqrt (54 * 4*10^23) = 4.7 * 10^12
   Thus 10^17 is reasonable with margin.

Cloud engines calculate a billion positions / s. Thus 3 such engines calculate in 5 years:
10^9 positions / s / engine * 3 engines * 3600 s / h * 24 h / d * 365.25 d / a * 5 a = 4.4 * 10^17
Thus 3 engines exhaust in 5 years all 10^17 relevant positions and weakly solve Chess.

That confirms what GM Sveshnikov said:
'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.'

The obstacle is money: 3 million $ to hire 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters and rent 3 cloud engines.

p310: Utter nonsense about what solving a game means.

I think people were just filling in time waiting for you to justify your calculation of SF's error rates by applying it to the games here where we can check.

So, a deductive argument whose first tenet is something which all chess players know is not true? Something which you could have learnt from #6185 that pointed out this glaring error (instead of downvoting it without understanding it).

Alternatively, a reference to any version of the rules of chess would help avoid such mistakes.

I believe that @tygxc is now downvoting contributions by almost every other contributor to this forum (as an inferior alternative to learning from them). Others should show the true balance of opinion.

@6196
"a reference to any version of the rules of chess"
++ Laws of Chess: https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 
'1.4 The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.
1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed.
1.4.2 The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.'
How can you checkmate your opponent's king? A direct attack can succeed against a weaker player, but when both players are strong, an endgame is inevitable. In that endgame the aim is to queen a pawn.

Obviously what Ushenina did wrong in this position.

If she'd only queened her pawn here instead of 82.Bd5.

@tygxc, please confirm that you have at least a little objectivity by acknowledging that a game of chess can be won without queening a pawn. This is no concession and has no cost.

Alternatively, if you wish to indicate a complete lack of objectivity and pathological disconnect from reality, you can do so by downvoting this post.

@6200

"a game of chess can be won without queening a pawn"
++ Yes, among weaker players direct attacks often succeed. When both players play well,
an endgame is inevitable and in an endgame the aim is to queen a pawn.
Yes, KR, KBB, KBN and KNN vs. KP can checkmate without a queen, but those are rare too.
If those occur, it usually results from the threat of queening a pawn.
The objective of each player is to checkmate.
The strategy to achieve that against opposition is to queen a pawn.
'Pawns are the soul of chess' - Philidor

"Yes, KR, KBB, KBN and KNN vs. KP can checkmate without a queen, but those are rare too."

I think you might have missed one.

@6198

"1.4 The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.
1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed.
1.4.2 The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game."

++ The checkmate rule plays no role in weakly solving chess.
 In none of the perfect games we have was the checkmate rule invoked.