Chess will never be solved, here's why

@6746
"the question is to derive it from the start. Thats solving for all 8x8 chess"
++ No that is not solving 8x8 chess.
Determining if the starting position is a draw, a win, or a loss is ultra-weakly solving chess. There is massive evidence from millions of human and engine games as well as the logical argument that a tempo is not enough to win to know that the initial position is a draw.

Weakly solving chess is figuring out how to draw from the starting position. It is thus the path from the initial position to other drawn positions until a known draw, like a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.

Strongly solving chess is figuring out for all legal positions if they are draw, a win, or a loss.

"Solving chess means finding an optimal strategy for the game of chess, that is, one by which one of the players (White or Black) can always force a victory, or either can force a draw (see solved game)" - Wikipedia

The only way to do that is to go through the entire position tree because you don't know if black's position is a starting loss. Because game theory says both sides have perfect information, and like you said about tempo advantage, you literally don't know if the starting position is a win loss or draw of white. I am not sure what you are saying, because what I am talking about is literally "solving chess", and this is coming from someone who took a class on weak and strong deterministic problems.

 I can see what you are saying about, "Strongly solving"chess, but if you think about its the same case, where you would need a quantum computer to just go through all the variations, and if you think about it, if you find the most optimal solution any other legal position would be a loss from which ever side changed from the given optimal solution and you wouldnt have to go through all those tree paths

Chess is a closed game and a perfect closed game always ends in a draw. Kind of like tic tac toe. Chess cannot be perfectly solved but that doesn't mean its unsolvable.

Except it does not. On a bigger board it is a win for white. It is only a draw on a 3x3 board because you run out of space.

ok but who

Let's all give a rousing round of applause for proof by assertion!

[Yeah, that's sarcasm].

Very Interesting

I'm sure a super computer will be able to prove chess is a draw with perfect play.  maybe even a win for white.

Only time will tell...  In the meantime me and some friends made a new game that i will be posting online chess.com very soon.  

There will always be something fun and challenging to play regardless.

PowerfulMover sounds like a spambot, constructing sentences by rearranging previous posts.

Interesting. 

That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  You need to define both "closed" and "perfect", I guess.

You can add one rule to chess and turn it into a forced win immediately.  Much like you can turn Tic Tac Toe into a 4x4x4 board and have it be a forced win for Xs.

The general premise that a turn based game can always be equalized just shows a complete lack of imagination and understanding of game mechanics.  You can design games that produce any of the 3 outcomes, it's not very hard at all.

I feel it is first among equals.

I don't know anything about space. But if people can walk on the moon why can't they walk  on mars? Isn't mars bigger than the moon?

Do you guys know who has cheated hans or Magnus????

@6748

"Solving chess means finding an optimal strategy for the game of chess, that is, one by which one of the players (White or Black) can always force a victory, or either can force a draw (see solved game) - Wikipedia"
++ Wikipedia is not the authority. The authority on this is Prof. van den Herik.
"ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and
strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions."

"The only way to do that is to go through the entire position tree"
++ No, you can ultra-weakly solve Chess without going through any tree at all.
To weakly solve Chess you only have to go through all 10^18 relevant positions.
To strongly solve Chess you have to visit all 10^44 legal positions.

"you don't know if black's position is a starting loss" ++ We do know Chess is a draw.

"you literally don't know if the starting position is a win loss or draw of white" ++ It is a draw.

"what I am talking about is literally solving chess"
++ Ultra-weakly solving Chess merits no further discussion: we know it is a draw.
Strongly solving chess merits no further discussion: 10^44 legal positions is too much.
Weakly solving chess is interesting and the 10^18 relevant positions can be done in 5 years.

"Strongly solving chess, but if you think about its the same case"
++ 10^18 relevant positions is not the same as 10^44 legal positions.

@6762

"you have zero facts to conclude chess is a draw" ++ There are millions of suporting facts.

"As chess is not won by tempos, or even having a material advantage."
++ Chess is won by checkmating the opponent. A direct attack on the king can only succeed if the opponent plays not optimally. The most feasible way to win is to queen a pawn.
'Other things being equal, any material advantage is enough to win' - Capablanca
A pawn is enough to win other things being equal.
A pawn in the initial position is worth 3 tempi.
A tempo is not enough to win.
Each move dilutes the 1 tempo advantage of white in the initial position.

"That is why chess has to be solved to answer the question is chess a draw with perfect play"
If chess is strongly solved, then chess is weakly solved as well, but that is not necessary.
If chess is weakly solved, then chess is ultra-weakly solved as well, but that is not necessary.
Example: Checkers has been weakly solved, not strongly.
That took 10^14 relevant positions, not all 10^20 legal positions.

@6768

"But if people can walk on the moon why can't they walk  on mars?"
++ Mars has more gravity than the Moon, but less than the Earth.
Mars is farther away than the Moon and that makes it harder.
Chess has more relevant positions than Checkers and that makes it harder.