You could solve it for the dark squares (just don't include any of the light ones).
Then solve it for the light squares.
Put the two solutions together and you've solved chess.
QED (quite easily done)
Easier still, solve it for the white pieces (just don't include any of the black ones). Black has no king to checkmate, so White can't win
Similarly solving for the black pieces, Black can't win.
Combining the solutions, neither side can win, ergo chess is a draw.
QED.
The difference is huge for a strong solution of chess, but not for a weak solution which merely has to achieve the optimal result of the starting position, not to successfully take advantage of blunders by the opponent. ...
1. That depends on the weak solution. The fact that there are weak solutions that include no repetitions doesn't imply that all weak solutions include no repetitions.
True, but not relevant to the complexity of the problem. The problem is to find a weak solution (to solve chess) not to find all weak solutions or know anything about them.
(1) If your strategy aims to draw, repetitions of basic chess positions are to be expected. But whatever move your strategy says to play the first time you reach a basic chess position (or any time you reach a position for the first time) will do just as well. Thus you only need to consider basic chess positions when you define the strategy.
(2) If the starting position is a win and you have a winning strategy that ever repeats a basic chess position, the strategy can be simplified - i.e. play the move in your strategy for the given chess position + ply count that gets to a win most quickly (against most resilient defense) ignoring the history beyond that. This rule prevents repetitions. I think the ply count may be needed because you could get to the same position with two different ply counts via different routes and one of them may require a different continuation due to the possibility of a 50 move draw. [Of course the number of basic chess positions + ply count is only moderately larger on a log scale than the number of basic chess positions].
Indeed, what's the point of having a thread with serious discussion, when @Optimissed is contributing the majority of posts? (OK, possibly @tygxc, but same applies.)
But before you attempt to steer anything it's a good idea to understand where you're trying to go,
And before you accuse people of trolling it's a good idea to stop doing it.
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.
...
MAR cannot get away from his "chess consists of different sets of rules" ideas
...
Whereas @Optimissed thinks the rules don't matter and if you have a solution under tic tac toe rules that's all versions of chess solved.