Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes, we can. I did.

As an analogy, a function in a computer program is some code that takes inputs with specified properties and outputs something. This implements the static mathematical notion of a function, which relates each member of the domain to a unique thing.

If you want it formalised, I can do so, but I see no room for misunderstanding.

Yes and we were the first in the UK to have cable TV. We had it for years before most other places so we had fully wired internet very early. But Wigan is built on a hill in a valley, surrounded by bigger hills. It was an early Roman town, one day's march from Chester and one day from Ribchester. But I'm from Whitehaven and lived in Northumberland before coming here. I'll probably end up in either of those places, or maybe Kendal.

I wasn't talking about the internet response.

That's right. No strategy is possible at the moment.

I think that it depends on developing AI to the level where it can write an algorithm. I think at the present rate of progress, 20 years minimum for the software and conceivably, never. Hardware is the difficult part. Maybe never. If so, software will need further development. Maybe 40 years at the present rate of progress. It still might be unfeasible.

I'm not a Wiganer so that's immaterial.

My Wife is a Wiganer and she has an MSc. My son is a Wiganer and he has an M Math and a physics PhD. Where are you from?

I'm from non Wigan.

I can see how I failed to be clear enough about what I meant. Firstly, I meant "in principle". It is clear it is a long way from practical, due to the massive computing resources needed.

Also, regarding the actual method, I meant Stockfish would be used to arrive at strategies in the same way as Chinook was used in the solution of checkers. i.e. not with any assumption that the moves it selected were right, but rather using it to recommend candidates and only backtracking when initial candidates were found to be inadequate. Deal with this on a case by case basis may make more sense than going back to square one. (All in principle - the resources are impractical).

Still a little vague, but it deals with your correct observation.

Small world! I too am from the complement of Wigan.

Are you going to decide which before you start? In less than 5 years? Are you actually going to tell anybody?

I think the useage has gone out but in military terms, a military formation or part of one that comes from a particular place would be referred to as the "complement" of or from that place: ie the Wigan complement. Also, "contingent is similar". So you're using it wrongly unless you're from Wigan, because it has a prioritised meaning, opposite to the one you seem to assume.

Now now, you're teasing him. It makes no difference.

@5002
"I think the heuristics that van den Herik was talking about
were the kind of heuristics that Allis included in his connect4 solution
which were perfectly valid and proven techniques that could be used in particular situations."

++ Allen solved Connect Four by brute force.
Allis independently solved Connect Four with a set of 7 rules.
Both are a 'strategy' to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition.

For chess pure brute force is thinkable, but not efficient.
Pure rules is not feasible: we have rules, but not very precise ones.
Weakly solving chess needs a combination of brute force calculation and knowledge.
The latest computers do the brute force, the good assistants contribute the knowledge.

We know 1 Nh3 opposes less to the draw than 1 Nf3.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: the center.

We know 1 a4 opposes less to the draw than 1 e4 or 1 d4.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: the center, development.

We know 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and thus does not oppose to the draw.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: a piece down with no compensation is a loss. I have even presented analysis working it out to checkmate.

@5012
'Are you going to decide which before you start?'
++ It does not matter. Both are viable.
The main obstacle is 3 million $ money for 5 years of latest computers and good assistants.

Chess will never be solved. Hmm...

I remember more than one of my elementary school teachers telling us that any time there's a statement containing the words 'always' or 'never' you better read it closely, because it's probably not right.

The Tableturner

Black is up by many pieces but white will turn the tables around. Find best moves.

I used it in the correct mathematical sense, and MARattigan understood this. (There being no military context, that usage is irrelevant).

A woman will never ride on the back of a speckled hen, to Alpha Centauri. Your teacher wasn't right. It was just a moral lesson for you.