Chess will never be solved, here's why

Inductive reasoning is extremely important in the real world - it is the kernel of the scientific method, for example - but it never reaches certainty (except where it reduces to trivial deductive reasoning - eg hypothesis = all the balls in an urn are black, evidence = one white ball is taken out)

No, I am not "playing the game". I am participating in rational discussion where everyone (that matters) agrees on the reasoning that is valid.

The fact that you responded without becoming aware of what combinatorial means shows the root of your difficulty. The correct response was to look the word up. This process, executed habitually thousands of times, means all those involved in rational discussion speak the same language, the language of rational discourse about that topic.

Solving chess is a combinatorial problem because it is about a finite system. There are a finite number of positions. There are a finite number of strategies that determine play for one side. The question is whether there exists a strategy for one or other side that wins.

Handwaving is not sufficient to prove this. There are games where very simple reasoning suffices (such as it is easy to show the second player in generalised tictactoe cannot ever have a winning strategy). No-one has demonstrated this is true for chess (and I would bet my life it is not possible).

You are playing the game, up to now. That is, you are attempting to reply to points made by the other person, rather than to a misrepresentation of them.

It is never correct to misrepresent.

(You might want to look back at the last post: I expanded it).

<<The fact that you responded without becoming aware of what combinatorial means shows the root of your difficulty. The correct response was to look the word up.>>

But how was my guess, before I look it up?

It was a guess that happened to be incorrect.

Nor would it tell you the answer.

"The fact that you responded without becoming aware of what combinatorial means shows the root of your difficulty."
Good point.
Those who don't understand about combinations and permutations may not grasp the difficulties of 'solving' chess.  Or - not grasp the math involved. 
Or both.  (its okay - not an 'earthshaking' deficit )

For example - the fact that positions with seven pieces on board and less have been thorougly solved (supposedly) - with all legal move possibilities and resulting positions all 100% accounted for ...
means little next to the growing number of combinations of pieces and positions - as more pieces are added.  
To understand and appreciate how fast that number grows and how unmanageable it becomes - some insight into 'permutations and combinations' is 'helpful'.  

Permutations and combinations aren't particularily formidable in math - as far as understanding them is concerned.
Differential equations are Much more difficult !  Imho.

Most people can understand or do understand exponents.
one of the reasons that is so is that we use them everyday - constantly.
The worldwide numbering system is in fact exponential!
with columns of numbers representing higher exponential powers of ten as numbers increase in length to the left.
It is in fact a sum of exponential terms with 'coefficients'.
The numerals in each column are the coefficients.

But combinations are different.

Well, in the intervening time I did my best to find out what it means. I looked at two or three links and found that apparently, it isn't easy to explain. Certainly not for those who are experts in the field but then, English might not be their forte. I got the impression that it's linked to a number of things, including programming and that it's a field where there can be a very large number of conditions which define a problem, which is being solved. And that my guess was exactly right.

If not, perhaps you'd be so good as to explain it, because it wouldn't do to use it to trip someone else up, if you didn't know what it meant. Having mentioned that, it doesn't alter the fact that something can be known before it's proven. Therefore, the diversion wasn't relevant.

Doesn't follow from what? That's at least twice you've used that and you use it in place of "I disagree". Only a logical argument does or does not "follow". That something can be known before it's proven is not a logical argument but a simple fact. It might even be an axiom.

All in all, if the entire lot of you didn't try to be so clever, you'd be cleverer.

"Having mentioned that, it doesn't alter the fact that something can be known before it's proven."

It may sound very formidable to suggest a 'fact' can't be altered ... 
but 'can' there - doesn't follow.  And there's no valid 'the fact' there either.
Somebody has applied an imaginary 'default' again.

Much more 'factual' and accurate and valid would be 'some things might be known without proof in some cases'  but that's so general that its not progress.

Again - the projection.
First another imaginary 'default' position - with 'therefore' tacked on and then an attempt to impose both invalids 
and then a claim of 'victory' to follow.

@btickler mentioned about a particular person constantly 'bumbling into mistakes' and then disparaging and that being 'always amusing'.
And more and more - it is. 

With the patterns becoming clearer ...
we're going to see a lot of attempts to impose an imaginary default or defaults !   

Oh come on, constantly accusing others of "projection" is a pretty classic example of projection itself. Study Freud or something. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to let readers know you're dim.

You could do with some lessons on how to think in straight lines. You aren't going to learn it from the others in this thread.

Firstly, we haven't been discussing facts: but a "fact" can be considered as an accurate description of a really existing state of affairs, right? With me so far?

Now, people have opinions and beliefs and some of those opinions and beliefs they believe to be knowledge. Is that ok for you? Knowledge is basically propositions we believe to be true, to the extent that we hold them as unquestioned fact. However, there's a difference between the two kinds of "fact" hitherto discussed. One can be considered as "objective", because it's an accurate description of states of affairs, or reality. The other, we see as more "subjective" because it consists of propositions we hold as facts but which may not be so.

In reality, we tend not to be able to tell. We don't discriminate between the two types of fact because we can't. We don't have a bird's eye view which unerringly shows us which facts are true and which only may be true.

How are we doing so far? Don't forget, I've studied philosophy formally. I'm just expanding on basic epostemology for you. You can take it or leave it ....try to understand it or not. I'm trying to keep it very simple and non-formal.

Now let's jump right back to "knowing things are true without proof". It was known without doubt that draughts (checkers) was a draw from the first move before it was formally proven to be drawn. That's a real life example of something you seem to be claiming can't happen. Therefore, it would be a good idea if you tried to get into the habit of not arguing against things before you understand them. For all his fine words, btickler is just as prone to this basic mistake as you. No-one is seriously going to discuss anything with you, when you do that.

edited ^

Along with his constant projection - over and over again -
we're also going to see imaginary 'default positions' that he wishes to apply - to everybody ...
and - imaginary authority too.
Such is then built on to add 'advice' as to 'how to think' when very obviously - logic is not being used.
(I skipped most of that - and most of such posts can be skipped - imaginary 'instructions' based on imaginary authority)
Point: he did get some response from some persons.
Why?  Maybe because its so easy to refute his posts - its just too tempting?
And there's the entertainment value too. 

People have been trying to 'solve' chess for a long time.
And now computers are taking quite a run at it.
But the nature of the task - and how big it is - can nonetheless be discussed here ...  regardless of how much whoever wants to personalize it.

#533
The given Tromp position is legal: we have a proof game from the initial position that leads to it.
It is not a sensible position: it will never arive in a perfect game of chess.
Multiple promotions e.g. to 4 queens rarely happen in real play, maybe once in 500 games.
Underpromotions to knight, rook, or bishop rarely happen in real play, usually to avoid stalemate, or to exploit the unique properties of the knight. Maybe once in 500 games.
The 3 random positions on the Tromp website are all proven legal, but non is sensible i.e. none can happen in real or perfect play because of the multiple excess promotions and underpromotions that make no sense. It is not that these are rare examples of the Tromp count: it are random samples, i.e. all ordinary positions from the Tromp count look that way. That is why the Tromp count is way too high for the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of solving chess.
Even more: a sample of 200 random positions without excess promotions also contains most positions with non sensible pawn structures or piece arrangements. So even the 3*10^37 is way too high.

A much more reasonable limitation on limiting promotions would simply be to limit the number of non-pawn pieces besides the King - to 15.
Which is the case anyway - the legal limit.
That's going to greatly cut down on the total possible positions anyway.
Enormously cut it down.   Plus cut down on promotions too.
But there are other 'cutdowns' that can be made ...
So for example - a position with four white pawns and four white knights and four white bishops  and two white Queens ...  is impossible.
A max of four pawns could have been promoted - so you couldn't have gotten 2 extra knights and 2 extra bishops and an extra Queen from just four pawns promoting.  
There's a gigantic long list of such illegal positions.
But the computer doesn't have to prove they couldn't have got there by moves (which would be much too cumbersome) - its simply mathematically impossible anyway.  
You can't get five - from four.  Not on that.

But there's other cutdowns too -