First understand what it means.
What what means? Trolling, by any chance? Spamming?
No, what "solving chess" might mean. Just read up on it and understand before posting. (Please.)
Firstly, it is not about finding a strategy. It means finding a series of moves.
Correct. Relatively straightforward. No strategy or algorithm can solve Chess. Only one move at a time can.
@7194
"Only one move at a time can."
++ Yes. That is what Sveshnikov said: 'I will bring all openings to technical endgames'.
It is just a calculation from the opening to the 7-men endgame table base.
That requires 10^17 relevant positions and takes 5 years.
I have a good idea. Since you're so full of accusing others of ignorance, how about telling me (us) what "solving chess" means to you? In your own words.
Already done. I'll leave you to trawl back through your acres of vacuous posts to find it.
"computers will never be better than grandmasters "this was believed until early 2000s.now its like a joke. maybe we wont need to solve all combinations, maybe like on the 40th move computers will find out one player definitely has advantage or it will end with inevitable draw from that move. So the answer is :we cant know it yet.
We can be confident it's a draw because we can think about the problem in a different way from the way that we program computers to analyse it. [If the word "know" is left in, this is merely a statement about unreliable human thinking].
There can be no single line, leading to a win
A single line only deals with a single opponent move in each position that arises. Many such lines do lead to wins: look at any chess database for examples.
It is strongly believed that there is no winning strategy (comprehensive, fast decision algorithm that leads to a win against any play), but no rigorous proof exists. As analogy it is reasonable to strongly believing that a strong pseudoprime is prime (eg when a statistical argument indicates there is, say, 1 in 10^12 chance of this not being so).
Anyone who claimed that they knew such a strong pseudoprime was prime would be being overconfident, regardless of how certain they felt or how poor their understanding of the mathematics of belief. The difference between a small probability and zero is huge in an abstract sense, even if pragmatically it can often be ignored.
and if there had been a win, it would have been evident.
Unreliable players looking at an almost insignificant fraction of positions know everything! 
To add yet more noise explaining what it means for a game to be solved, I have to share my favorite math video of all time:
(direct link in case embed doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYj4NkeGPdM)
A lot of it is directly relevant to chess (and every other combinatorial game) as a mathematical framework for primitive analysis of openings/tactics — Winning ways for your mathematical plays 
.
Chess is already solved this from the day computers could beat world chess champion 100%, it all started with big blue and Kasparov...
To add yet more noise explaining what it means for a game to be solved, I have to share my favorite math video of all time:
(direct link in case embed doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYj4NkeGPdM)
A lot of it is directly relevant to chess (and every other combinatorial game) as a mathematical framework for primitive analysis of openings/tactics — Winning ways for your mathematical plays .
I received both of the volumes of that work as presents about 4 decades ago and they are fascinating. Spent quite a bit of time studying them years later - though to absorb all the material would require a huge amount of time.
One topic that arises is surreal numbers, a huge class of games that turns out to be a generalisation of numbers including infinitessimals, infinite quantities and the entire hyperreal field (which can be used to formalise calculus as informally constructed by Newton (when infinitessimals had not been formalised and the formalisation in terms of limits had not been done).
Chess is already solved this from the day computers could beat world chess champion 100%, it all started with big blue and Kasparov...
Nope. That is not solved. Nor is Tygxc's proposed outcome solved.
I have a good idea. Since you're so full of accusing others of ignorance, how about telling me (us) what "solving chess" means to you? In your own words.
Already done. I'll leave you to trawl back through your acres of vacuous posts to find it.
LOL! Acres of posts. @Optimissed you check the back forty. I'll get another horse and ride the fence line. Don't forget your varmint gun.
I'm the one attempting to steer it towards a serious discussion, whereas you are either a troll (most likely) or just incapable of engaging usefully.
If you were capable of engaging then you would respond to posts in a positive manner rather than doing what you're doing, which looks like trolling.
That's what they all say.
wow so intersting - wait no one cares
I'm sure you can see the logical error in your premise if you think hard enough.
To add yet more noise explaining what it means for a game to be solved, I have to share my favorite math video of all time:
(direct link in case embed doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYj4NkeGPdM)
A lot of it is directly relevant to chess (and every other combinatorial game) as a mathematical framework for primitive analysis of openings/tactics — Winning ways for your mathematical plays .
Great video, a lot of fun.
To add yet more noise explaining what it means for a game to be solved, I have to share my favorite math video of all time:
(direct link in case embed doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYj4NkeGPdM)
A lot of it is directly relevant to chess (and every other combinatorial game) as a mathematical framework for primitive analysis of openings/tactics — Winning ways for your mathematical plays .
Great video, a lot of fun.
Just makes me think, there is probably a game theoretic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Seriously. (Conway et al's work on games as numbers arrives from a combinatorial viewpoint at something very useful for all of the mathematics of quantum mechanics and could likely be used as an alternative foundation. Conway is of course known for one piece of work relating to QM - the "free will theorem").
While the topic of this forum, the discussion and my last post has got rather dull, here is something much more interesting! It's a beautifully simple (class of) game(s).
if every single move was looked over by every grandmaster/former grandmaster, and chess engine, surely the best move can be found in every positon.
First understand what it means.