Chess will never be solved, here's why

Because you're the one that keeps calling people morons.

Such vitriol on this thread.

@7032

"Didn't you mean long before 30 moves?"
++ The shortest transition with optimal play from both sides from the initial position to a 7-men endgame table base draw took 31 moves:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164331 

Final position has 10 men. In which 7 man tablebase did they look up the draw?

Mine was faster anyway.

     Even top GMs make mistakes and misjudgements. Today's analysts find errors in games from yesteryear that were considered brilliancies. So how can a group of GMs (smokers or not) be expected to recognize perfect play? How can we rely on their decisions as to which lines to ignore? 

     Top engines will beat any GM. Today's top engines will beat the top engines of five years ago. By the time this five-year "solution" process is complete it will be out of date. 

     There is no way Sveshnikov's plan will produce a definitive solution. There is no way that a brute force calculation of all possible lines, from the opening position to checkmate or a hopeless draw, can be accomplished within a reasonable period of time using today's technology, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

     The only possibility for solving chess I can see is a revolutionary "great leap forward" in data analysis technique or/and computing/storage technology. There is no reason to believe this will never be possible, although I hardly expect to live to witness such an outcome.

The longest chess game is around 6000 moves possible, isn't it? We have limited number of choices in total, not infinite. Game has to end in six thousand moves, one way or another.

So we have 32 pieces, finite number of possible moves. Computers can't compute and store all combinations? to a hard drive?

Then analyze all static positions and give everyone of them a positional value? It doesn't look impossible at least. Just need vast computation power and correct way to approach to the problem.

8848.5 moves long. But 5800 or 8848.5 moves long makes no practical difference. Either is impossibly long with current technology and ideas if the starting position is a draw. If it's a mate in 16 that's different.

(That's competition rules post 2017 of course. Under FIDE post 2017 basic rules or pre 2017 rules the longest game is infinite.) 

That's the trouble with videos. It's not. It's 8848.5.

Read the link.

(They probably meant 5899 anyway, or 5898.5 at any rate, depending on how you look at it.)

absolute nonsense. chess is an abstract game and it is not infinite, really huge, but not infinite, it's possible that in the future chess will be solved by a computer using a smart algorithm. I think maybe one day computers prove that chess is a mate in 200 from the starting position. and the only very best move is e4 and not d4 or vice versa. but even after that day chess will stay a competitive sport and people start the game with different openings.

Depends on which rules you pick. Only finite under FIDE competition rules since 2017. Still infinite under FIDE basic rules and infinite under basic or competition rules prior to 2017.

Doesn't stop there being a solution.

e4 e5 for black is unbreakable. Chess will unlikely be solved in our lifetime

@7093

"Final position has 10 men. In which 7 man tablebase did they look up the draw?"
++ Recapture Kxf2 is forced, then Rf6+ and Rxf7

++ If you start analysing chess then you hit a 7-men endgame table base draw after 33 moves i.e. 66 ply in some branches of optimal play by both sides; after 44 moves i.e. 88 ply in half of the branches; after 60 moves i.e. 120 ply most of the branches and after 120 moves i.e. 240 ply all branches.

Chess never reaches the 5898.5 move maximum: that is by 49 useless moves hopping around, then a 1 step pawn move, then 49 useless moves hopping round etc.
After 120 moves of perfect play the game ends in a draw in all branches.

"Mine was faster anyway." ++ But yours was no optimal play from both sides.

@7094

"So how can a group of GMs (smokers or not) be expected to recognize perfect play?"
++ They do not, and they do not need to: it is the 7-men endgame table base that pronounces the verdict. If whatever you try for white leads to a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition, then Chess is weakly solved.

"How can we rely on their decisions as to which lines to ignore?" ++ That is why they need to be (elder) (ICCF) (grand)masters. They only ignore lines they are sure of like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

"By the time this five-year "solution" process is complete it will be out of date."
++ No. Without any human intervention and only limiting underpromotions to pieces previously captured it would require Sqrt(10^38) = 10^19 positions i.e. 500 years to weakly solve Chess.
The game knowledge of the good assistants cuts it down to 10^17 positions and 5 years. 

"no way Sveshnikov's plan will produce a definitive solution" ++ The only problem is funding.

"a brute force calculation of all possible lines, from the opening position to a hopeless draw"
++ It can be accomplished with 3 cloud engines and 3 (elder) (ICCF) (grand)masters.

"as has been repeatedly demonstrated here" ++ I have repeatedly demonstrated it can be done.

"I hardly expect to live to witness such an outcome."
++ It depends on funding. Maybe you will live when humans walk on Mars, maybe not.

@7107

"What on Earth are you talking about?" ++ This is the longest perfect game with optimal play from both sides to reach the 7-men endgame table base draw.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164280 
It took 119 moves to the 7-men endgame table base draw i.e. 238 ply. All the other perfect games reach the 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition sooner.

"But how does that relate to your proposed method of solution?"
++ If you calculate all reasonable white moves, then 1 tentative black response, then all reasonable white moves, then 1 tentative black response and so on then the 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached in at most 119 moves, i.e. 238 ply.

Another explanation: chess has 10^44 legal positions. 10^44 = 2^146.
So after 146 digital decisions you get the whole of Chess.
Checkmates that exceed 146 moves exist, but they must contain a string of forced moves.

"Stockfish doesn't do perfect play."
++ Agreed, but that does not matter. Stockfish only needs to generate the reasonable white moves. Stockfish then selects the 1 black response without worry if perfect or not.
If a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached, then that validates all black responses as fit to draw.

"99.9 % of my games are perfect" ++ No, they are not.

"same way you got your ICCF stats." ++ No.

y you no accepting friend requests man I like having you on my list I loved how brilliantly you answered the original poster of this forum.

An 8 piece tablebase is a drop in the ocean of chess (a major understatement when you compare the scales).

     As I understand your explanation/elaboration of Sveshnikov's proposal,  analysis will done on only those opening moves the experts consider relevant and will only analyze lines from drawn ICCF grandmaster games that experts believe display "perfect play". This seems to make the entire enterprise reliant on humans and engines that are known to be imperfect. Am I misunderstanding something?

@7112

"analysis will done on only those opening moves the experts consider relevant"
++ Analysis will not be done on moves that are clearly no optimal play e.g. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng5 etc. It is to not waste engine time on what is already obvious.

"will only analyze lines from drawn ICCF grandmaster games"
++ The drawn ICCF WC Finals games serve as a backbone of already completed analysis as they each already represent 2 years of engine analysis under guidance of an ICCF grandmaster.
It is to speed up the process.

"This seems to make the entire enterprise reliant on humans and engines that are known to be imperfect." ++ The enterprise relies on the 7-men endgame table base known to be perfect.

"Am I misunderstanding something?" ++ Yes

Stockfish - "I am not 100% sure about the move 2. Ba6. Better investigate it a little. Still won't be absolutely sure, but this is essential for practical purposes".

@tygxc - "I can just look at 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 and know with 1 ply analysis what the result is."

Stockfish - "I guess that's why I'm 1500 Elo points stronger than you".