Chess will never be solved, here's why

@5513
"the only real solution is a calculation to checkmate or a draw in all possible lines"
++ Do you really think it is relevant to calculate all possible lines of 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? to checkmate?
++ Do you really think it is relevant to calculate all possible lines of the final position of https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 until a 3-fold repetition?

'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
A strategy is not necessarily calculate all possible lines.
Allen has solved Connect Four by calculating all possible lines.
Allis has independently solved it with a set of 9 knowledge rules.
A strategy could be 'answer 1 e4 with 1... e5, then 2 Nf3 with  2...Nf6, 1 d4 with 1...d5, 1 c4 with 1...c5, 1 Nf3 with 1...Nf6', but could also be 'maintain symmetry as long as possible'
A strategy could be 'analyse all possible lines', but also 'analyse all possible lines, but when a material advantage is there, trade material to remain with a passed pawn, queen it, and checkmate with it.'
A strategy can be a combination of calculation and knowledge rules.

@5519
"a solution awaits the development of much better engines or a breakthrough in methodology"
++ We already have engines that calculate a billion positions per second.
We already have a methodology.
Start from ICCF drawn games, explore 3 alternative lines at each white move.
Stop calculations when the good assistants determine an obvious draw or loss.
The 10^17 relevant positions can be done in 5 years.
If you deny the good assistants,
then it may well become 5 million years of irrelevant calculations.

@5494
"That is why the solution of checkers took years of computing."
++ No. Schaeffer spent most of the 19 years to write his own checkers-playing program Chinook and construct his own 10-men endgame tablebase. The real solving was from 2001 to 2007.
Schaeffer used less powerful computers than are available now.

Schaeffer only analysed 19 of the 300 tournament openings, needed to prove Checkers a draw.

Checkers is a smaller game than Chess or Losing Chess. 
Checkers and Losing Chess have more irreversible moves than Chess.
Corrollary: Chess has more stupid moves.
In Chess you can hop around aimlessly, not so in Checkers or Losing Chess.
Corrollary: To solve Chess it is necessary to eliminate the stupid moves.

The good assistants are indispensable. That is why GM Sveshnikov named them first:
'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.'

Your proposed vehicle SF15 doesn't know that any of those lose by force. Neither do you or your handmaidens.

There is a strong chance that the result if continued in LLC (limited lookahead chess) would be decisive. They would all appear to oppose against the draw in that game.

Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

Once you've done that we can stop discussing your proposal.

It doesn't work.

That's quite correct and is an example of why the so-called strong solution is completely useless.

However, there is a grey area, where moves may be good but probably are not. Three GMs with their binoculars are not going to spot those birds in the half-light, in five hundred thousand years, let alone in five years.

I know. I don't read his posts though. Gave up reading them nearly a week ago so I have no idea what he's on about but I admit to occasionally irritating him. I'm a slow learner. Should have done it a year since.

@5534

"applying exactly the same standards, chess is beyond practical reach."
++ Schaeffer only analysed 19 of the 300 tournament openings.
Checkers has less stupid moves than Chess, so solving Chess needs a way to dismiss those.

"If only they had been able to just ignore loads of those based on inadequate heuristics"
Checkers is more tactical, so calculation is enough. I advocate adequate heuristics only.

"aimlessly" is a meaningless term only suitable for obfuscation.
1 a4, 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Ng1 are examples of aimless.

"In checkers, the majority of positions where each side possesses at least one king are reversible." ++ That is correct, but 1) many positions have no king at either side, and
2) many of those that have a king are in the table base.

"Solving chess involves RIGOROUSLY showing moves to be "stupid""
++ That is why Sveshnikov called for GOOD assistants, e.g. (ICCF) (grand)masters.

"Sveshnikov was a chessplayer" ++ And even more a chess analyst and a teacher of analysis.

(1) Chess is a different game, and thus requires a different solution,
part like Checkers, part like Losing Chess, part like Connect Four. 

(2) We adhere to the definition:
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
'the game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally'

A strategy can mean a full or partial calculation like Checkers or Losing Chess,
but also a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination of both.

@5535

"doesn't know that any of those lose by force"
++ I know all of these lose by force. Any real chess player knows. The ICCF (grand)masters know.

"They would all appear to oppose against the draw in that game."
++ Playing for a loss is not opposing to a draw. Opposing to a draw is trying to win.

That, as @Elroch would point out, is merely a difference in semantics. You use the word "know" to mean what everyone else means by "guess". That difference means that what you know is not necessarily true.

But still no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

Once you've done that we can stop discussing your proposal.

It doesn't work.

Does the fact that it's not appeared mean you've already done it and reached the same conclusion, but you still post because you like to troll?

@5540
I do not work on positions of 7 men or less. Those have been strongly solved by the 7-men endgame table base. Do not tell me about castling rights. In practice when a 7-men endgame position is reached, castling rights are lost.

 
That's really the strong solution if "any opposition" is considered to mean "any moves".

It becomes the so-called weak solution (terribly clumsy terminology!) when "any moves" is qualified to something like "any useful moves".

Mpaetz is, unfortunately, continually asking "who determines that moves are useful?"; apparently unaware that is necessarily what much of the conversation has been about, all along. He seems to assume it's something to do with his ego. In general, and this is not a positive message, most of the people discussing this subject do not seem to have the mental acuity or clarity necessary for it. So round and round it goes it goes. 

Induction from a tiny sample of imperfect examples.

I already pointed out that it would take hardly any time to post a solution according to that definition, I don't need to talk about how sane your interpretation of "any opposition" is.

What do you need the supercomputers for?

Incidentally still no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

Once you've done that we can stop discussing your proposal.

It doesn't work.

Does the fact that it's not appeared mean you've already done it and reached the same conclusion, but you still post because you like to troll?

I've just realised this was meant to be a response to my post.

A reference to the user to whom you are responding would be useful. A reference to a user with a 400 rating is not so useful.

The fact that you do not work on positions with 7 men or less is quite irrelevant to my point and you do not work on positions with 7 men or less only because the facts can be checked in those positions.

The calculations to determine the starting position and error rates that you have many times posted make no mention of the number of men on the board, so if they're valid for 32 men they should be also valid for 5 or 7 or 26. I have asked you to check in the series of games I posted here as well as the earlier KNNKP games I posted.

It would save an awful lot of effort because we can all then stop discussing your proposal. Why don't you do that and post the results?

(II won't - and didn't - tell you about castling rights.)

"doesn't know that any of those lose by force"
++ I know all of these lose by force. Any real chess player knows. The ICCF (grand)masters know.

I don't pretend to understand the theory being discussed in this thread, but this response seems rather weak to me...... kind of like "Because I said so".  Many people "knew" the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. And some of those people were pretty smart.....otherwise. 

@5546

"A reference to a user with a 400 rating is not so useful."
++ There is no threshold of rating or college degrees.

"positions with 7 men or less only because the facts can be checked in those positions"
++ Yes, some positions of 7 men may be useful to check facts, e.g. endgames KRPP vs. KRP.

"they're valid for 32 men they should be also valid for 5 or 7 or 26"
++ Yes, from 32 to 8. You can use 7 too for verification.

"earlier KNNKP" ++ Not relevant. A draw is claimed in 7 men, so 5 men is never reached.

@5547
"Because I said so"
++ Indeed, I said so before. I repeat: