Chess will never be solved, here's why

Induction from a tiny sample of of imperfect examples that don't necessarily use the same rules and are in many or most cases terminated by an inductive imperfect evaluation even.

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

If you do that we can all concentrate on the topic instead of discussing your proposals.

Much of the science carried on up to and including the pre-Great-War or Edwardian era was carried out using tiny samples ... sometimes a sample size of one. That necessitated an in-depth methodology, often based also on subjective introspection. Since I've come to completely mistrust a statistical methodology, especially in psychology and related areas, I have learned that a small sample size, in-depth understanding and introspection is the way to go in some areas of thought. I mean, how can you do philosophy using a statistical approach?

This is not helpful. I threw in the "Because I said so" as an analogy, and THAT is what you choose to respond to?  How about the part where you say "I know, because I know, because every serious chess player knows, because Grand Masters know."  That's how you know? My point, which you clearly missed, was that it's not enough to say "I know" without some supporting evidence. Maybe you feel you've already provided that, but if so, you could have cited it as a reference. But your statement was, prima facie, weak. 

You didn't answer my question.

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?

Maybe read my post about it, Mike. Your initial assumption that we cannot know that, say, 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white is wrong. I also would answer "because I said so", since I consider this form of interlocution childish and ty is responding to it on its merits. Best not to copy other people's failed approaches.

Especially not @Optimissed's.

I didn't assume "we cannot know that". I just needed more from tygxc than just "I know because everyone knows". He may very well know, and everyone may very well know, but I was looking for some evidence from him, since he was the one making the claim.

You obviously missed the point. 

I can post you a solution if we accept the definition of solution you are quoting. (I nearly said, "the definition of solution you are using", but of course that would be wrong.)

So again; why do you need the supercomputers?

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?

@5561
'Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success,' - Capablanca
++ 'Any material gain' is easy to see: 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses a bishop.
'Other things being equal' is more difficult to judge, that is why the good assistants should be ICCF (grand)masters. In this case it is easy: white has no compensation of any kind.
Thus white is lost. The provided analysis only confirms that: checkmate in 82.

@5567
"I have a batch of KRPP vs. KRP games running at the moment"
++ Interesting. Let us see.

Any of the outright beginners in the chess craze at my local that I mentioned earlier could have told you that. 

Their judgement has about the same chance of correctness.

@5566
"why do you need the supercomputers?"

++ To calculate all 10^17 relevant positions.
That takes 5 years on 3 engines of a billion positions per second.

My point was that according to your definition of "solve" none of that is necessary. Try again.

We can know that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses by force for white if we are sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable about chess Then we CAN make that judgement. If we aren't sufficiently experienced, we cannot perhaps make that judgement.

There will be other examples, where we may think we know with a high degree of certainty or with a reasonable degree of certainty; or even believe 60-40. This just isn't such a position, no matter how others argue that it is a position where we cannot be entirely certain. They would have to prove that it is. They might say "but the burden of proof is yours" and again, it's enough to say "no it isn't". Ultimately, "what is meant by knowledge" needs to be discussed.

Are people in this thread able to discuss that usefully, do you imagine?? Judging by the responses, none of them are. Just look at Rattigan's response. He's good on computing but hasn't a clue on this. Hence his circular discussion with ty which has lasted two years.

Yeah but maybe he doesn't express himself in the way you would prefer him to.

Do you realise, RAT, that you aren't making a logical argument and your posts tend to be trolling, much of the time? I'm sure you do realise. My suggestion would be either try to argue well or don't argue at all. You aren't gaining much by trying to make fun of people.

When you finally realised that you understood one of my posts and that it was correct, and you decided to argue the same way with Elroch, I was hardly holding my breath. There were two reasons that games theory isn't applicable to solving and which I highlighted. You understood the more intuitive or inductive one. As for the other .... you didn't mention it but it was deductively based. They both amounted to the same thing.

I take it that you've made your serious effort for this decade, to show that you have half a brain?

There's no "maybe" about it. He definitely didn't express himself the way I would have preferred. 

^^ That's for a reason, which it would be impolite to mention,.