Chess will never be solved, here's why

Do you know what "loses by force" means? I don't think you do.

@6586
I know, you do not. I provided analysis.
Try to find an improvement for white. You will fail.

Oh, so you analyzed 1.g4 to a forced loss...

I haven't been following this topic so I didn't realize this line of argument would bring up more of your "proofs." I'll just quietly go away now.

It is very likely that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses by force. It is not impossible that it does not.

Some people have difficulty understanding very low probability possibilities when they are more than trivial.

For example, I would say you would understand that tossing N fair coins and getting N heads is possible for any number N. When N is, say 1,000,000, this probability is so tiny that it is for all practical purposes zero. But it is still a small positive number and anyone who claimed it was impossible to have a million heads from a million coin tosses (or that the probability of this event is zero) is easily refuted.

If you were to study the process of Bayesian inference, and to understand that inductive learning cannot do better than this the fact that an inductive conclusion never reaches certainty would be as obvious as that N heads has a strictly positive probability.

Hello

@6590
"understanding very low probability possibilities"
++ There are no probabilities, this is deterministic. A position is either drawn, won, or lost.

Sigh.

Any unfamiliar position has a deterministic result. Your faulty reasoning implies that this means the only belief states about it are certainty about one of the possible results.

Your reasoning is (obviously) wrong.

@6593

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses by force for white. That is not 'very likely', there are no coin flips involved.
1 g4? loses by force for white. Anybody who doubts that, find an improvement for white @6584.
The initial position is a draw. Evidence has been provided above,  inductively from ICCF and deductively from 1 pawn = 3 tempi, and 1 pawn needed to queen.
Those are facts we know.

I do not know if 1 e4 c5 draws as well as 1 e4 e5. Probably both draw.
I cannot put a percentage on it. They either draw or not.
I do not know if 1 e4 e6 or 1 e4 c6 draw or not, probably not.
I cannot put a percentage on it. They either draw or not.
I do not know if 1 f3 loses for white or not, probably not.
I cannot put a percentage on it. It either loses or not.

Let me introduce you to the well-known fallacy of "proof by assertion" (also "proof by repeated assertion"). You are a keen user of this so I am sure you will be pleased to now know the correct term for what you do.

As I said before. Post your 10/10 wins against SF15. You should have no difficulty if there's no uncertainty.

Does that mean you respectfully decline?

Another example of a very small probability that is not zero is the probability of winning against a much better chess player. Say one of us against the latest Stockfish.

This can be intuitively seen to be true by considering a deeper evaluation of the moves played by the two players and observing that there is a finite probability on two consecutive half moves that the weaker player plays a better move than the stronger player. With a reasonable assumption about some degree of independence, this means there is a finite probability of this happening on enough consecutive moves to achieve the victory.

The finite probability involved for this extreme reverse domination is so absurdly small as to be safe to believe it would not happen in practice, but no-one with an understanding of probability could seriously deny it is not a strictly positive probability. (It is of course not the only way a win could be secured, but emulates a typical theme of mathematical proofs of finding an easy route to the conclusion rather than dealing with all the inessential details).

@Optimissed

You've no doubt misunderstood something. 

People generally mean different things by words according to context. You use the word "know" when "guess" would be the appropriate word in the context of solving chess, so in common with @tygxc fall into @Elroch's "fallacy of proof by (repeated) assertion".

SF doesn't claim to know the result after 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6; it gives an evaluation.

That could be loosely interpreted as a degree of confidence.

In that case it is more confident of winning this (drawn) position.

So obviously SF's "degree of confidence" is not knowledge.

You claim absolute knowledge of the correct evaluation of positions such as the first (by assertion). If your use of the word "knowledge" is in any way useful in this context then you should be able to crap all over SF (or indeed anything). But you always seem reluctant to demonstrate.

Don't think you'll find many people willing to admit to that.

Anyone truly smart would not have spent over 300 forum pages arguing about this topic.  That would make almost everyone on chess.com MORE than your intellectual equals.

@Optimissed  And yet you are still here and adding to the pile.  It seems you love arguing about pointless things more than chess.  Perhaps a debate team reject?  Also you are apparently not so good at math as you think, as you joined this pile of c-r-a-p thread on page 2.  Since this is page 328, you have been a contributor to this nonsense for 327 pages.  You must be single, possibly divorced, as no wife would put up with you hyper-narcissism.  You are so in love with yourself and your own opinions, there could be no room for anyone else.  Then there's this gem: 

Actually not even then.

It can show a mate score then change its mind to +/-152.xx on occasion.

Interesting idea. I've only seen it happen without tablebase access (but then I don't have Syzygy tablebases so I wouldn't see it any other way). 

So far as I know SF uses only Syzygy tablebases and they don't give a mate length.

Why don't they announce "M?" instead of "152.xx"?

Some engines come to the conclusion there is a mate based on incomplete analysis. Sometimes the incompleteness turns out to be significant later, as the mate gets at least pushed beyond the horizon.

To be accurate:

(a) It's a sacrifice because Black can take the bishop.

(b) You can't see anything that is achieved in return for the bishop so you're willing to use proof by assertion to say it's fact.

(c) You can't prove the sacrifice is not perfect whether or not it achieves anything in return. You can't prove that the position is not, for example, drawn before and after the move (except by assertion, of course).