Chess will never be solved, here's why

These responses are less than compelling to my mind.  Relying on humans to be "good" just doesn't seem to fit with what you're trying to prove. 

"Little doubt".....sure.   "No doubt"......troublesome. 

Less compelling than a Messerschmitt 109's tracers arcing towards your cockpit.
More compelling than cold rice pudding on a colder day.
Somewhere in that interval.

We're witnessing a clash between the old way of "doing science" and the new. Although my heart is with the older way, I believe tygxc needs to adjust his wording to reflect that difference, particularly regarding the proper meaning of deduction. Then all should be well.

@5632
"Relying on humans to be "good" just doesn't seem to fit with what you're trying to prove."
++ Here is an example. https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 
The 2 ICCF grandmasters agree to a draw as neither side can win.
An engine might continue a long time before reaching a 3-fold repetition in all variations.

Good point. I'll add it to my dictionary.

No, we are not.

Solving a game is not science. It is basically a maths problem associated with the theory of combinatorial games. It is of course of very minor interest to the theoretical subject which concerns itself with general results, but is of interest because of the historical status of the game itself (and as a motivation to develop efficient procedures to do such things). 

By contrast, the four colour theorem is natural and fundamental, involving no arbitrary set of parameters (such as the rules of chess), and the same is true of many general theorems of combinatorial game theory.

The task that can be achieved by a "scientific" approach (i.e. inductive reasoning from empirical information) is a different one. Specifically, you can arrive at results that are uncertain (eg according to model M, there is a high probability that the optimal result is R) and approximate (eg strategy S probably loses very rarely), by contrast with a type of mathematical proposition that is certain and precise, achieved by rigorous deduction.

No, 6 individually inadequate pieces of evidence leave no doubt in the mind of someone unequipped to deal with uncertainty correctly. Such as you.

They entirely fail to do this for anyone who knows what solving a game is.

Good point. Another one for the dictionary.  

@5633
"Solving a game is not science."
Uhh?
Solving a game < game theory < mathematics < science

No. Mathematics is not part of science.

Mathematics consists entirely of deductive reasoning about abstract objects with defined properties.

Science consists entirely of inductive reasoning from empirical information with nothing given.

The key relationship of mathematics to science is that it provides models that encapsulate general behaviour (often known to be approximate, never known to be precise). This provides a sort of black box service, where information relating to the real world is passed to a mathematical model which produces other information which says something about the real world (usually - to be pedantic, always - statistical).

Solving a game in your sense is less than pretty well anything, but your assumption that mathematics is less than science is questionable.

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.

You don't have to wait for my KRPPvKRP runs. Your calculation should work for any material.

Mathematics is not "less than" science. It is incomparable to science (not a value judgement).

Their domains are entirely separate (even though mathematics provides a valuable service to science, and there is some practical benefit in the opposite direction).

I can say this with some authority, based on two mathematical degrees and 14 years working on applied physical science, mainly on mathematical and computational modelling.

That's why I said it was questionable.

I would say the statement that their domains are entirely separate is also open to question, but that's a different topic.

I always thought of science as "What humans know about the physical universe" and mathematics as the "Language we have devised to describe that knowledge".  And to me, they are two very different things, even though they are closely related.

That's probably a very crude way of looking at it, and likely I'll be corrected....but go easy. I'm old. 

It's open to question, but a lifetime of relevant specialism means that I have been aware of the answer for the long time, while not everyone has been.

You say, " The key relationship of mathematics to science is that it provides models ... information relating to the real world is passed to a mathematical model which produces other information which says something about the real world."

I think in some cases the two overlap.

So, if Newton says two bodies attract each other, that's a scientific statement. He refers to a mathematical model when he uses the word "attract", but refers to the concept directly when he says "two".

Mathematics analyses the concept "two" but the analysis is only a clarification of what is already understood by the term. And what the analysis says about the real world is not - to be pedantic - statistical.

Analyzes or just gives it a name?