Chess will never be solved, here's why

The main arguments seem to be around what I would think is not very relevant detail. Not much point deciding what the best colour for your rocket is going to be, if you can't design the engines.

That is the appropriate response to most, if not all,  personal criticism. Criticism of his arguments is fair game. 

you do make a point...

Anyone can make a point. That doesn't mean he's right. 

The question isn't "Can humans walk on Mars?". The real question is "Can humans devise the technology to get them to Mars safely?".  No one can say that's possible FOR SURE until it's proven possible. I understand there's much reason to believe we could, but it's not a certainty. That technology may be beyond human capability. Unlikely, I suppose, but we don't know yet. 
Counter arguments?

As I said, he completely ignores criticism. Perhaps, for some reason, you think it's personal criticism to point out that someone ignores criticism of his arguments?

It was a bit like that when Elroch discounted my own arguments that the terminology implies amd also perpetuates a lack of understanding. However, when you're immersed in an academic discipline, you get used to using terminology even if it isn't conducive to understanding. But the points tygxc ignores are not abstract ones like my own were. They are practical priorities. He thinks that calculations that will take millions of years can be done in five years, with the help of three GMs sipping gin and lemons. The others must be short of something worthwhile to do, to continue to discuss it. I actually think the conversation is no longer with tygxc. They're using him as a kind of sounding board to swap their own ideas.

@5854

You still do not understand.

"a single strong solution might say "If white, play 1.e4. If black respond to 1.d4 with 1. Nf6", and thus never deal with 1. d4 f5." ++ No, that is a weak solution.

"providing the value for every move in every position is such a natural one, it deserves its own term." ++ No, that is a strong solution.

Game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally.

Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined.

Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.

Strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.
1 d4 f5? is a legal position and thus is part of a strong solution just like 1 g4? or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?.

@5856

"At some point chess will be solved." ++ Yes.

"How?" ++ Starting from ICCF WC draws analyse 3 alternatives per move until the 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition draw.

"Why?" ++ It is human nature to explore things.

"When?" ++ 5 years after allocation of resources: 3 million $.

"Where?" ++ Somewhere.

"By whom?" ++ By 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters.

"By what means?" ++ By 3 cloud engines of a billion positions / s each.

"Who cares?" ++ All chess players.

"I wont be around to see it." ++ You probably will.

"its years away form what we can do" ++ Yes: 5 years.

I really don't think you should keep going down the "lack of understanding" route. You're very erudite and knowledgeable in your way but you do have massive blind spots, rather in the same wasy as tygxc. The rigorous definition is a meaningless sequence of words and you simply don't see why.

Never mind. You continue to believe that Games Theory applies to the solution of chess and when asked, it appars that it's because it employs a strategy. What's a strategy? Finding the best moves! Why doesn't Games Theory apply? Because Games Theory depends on constructing a simplified model of a real life situation and scoring possible strategies. Why doesn't that work here? Because such a strategy is identical to an algorithm which will not be perfect and so will generate errors.

That's fine for playing games because no-one expects them to be perfect but it's no use for solving. And all the mistaken thinking is hidden in the technical and impressive sounding definitions and labels, which is why the whole lot needs to be scrapped and started again. Because it leads to and perpetuates bad thinking and the reason I mentioned the minor detail, which is endlessly expounded upon, is because this endless discussion regarding minor detail is quite meaningless, taken in context. All it amounts to is how many millions of years with present day technology and methods the thing will take, so the boundaries are limits are endlessly discussed in a project where the fundamentals don't seem to be understood.

To sum up, tygxc is mindlessly parroting a GMs empty claim but you're in effect doing just the same. You're scared to really challenge and critique the fundamentals on which it all depends.

No. Rigorous definitions of mathematical concepts (such as "weak solution") are just that - rigorous definitions, expressible within a formal system.

Your spiel is obfuscation rather than relevant.

You are the one who is demanding that others conform to a formal system which is inadequate and most probably unsuited to this project. You act as if you are the owner and everyone else has to do what you say and this is why so many people get so annoyed with you. It seems that you cannot even understand what is being said to you, as you blindly insist on going forward with your beliefs intact, rather than trying to understand the mistakes you are perpetually making.

Anyway, my dear son @caproni reckons that chess is not expressable mathematically or reduceable to maths. He says it isn't even over the horizon, so how you can believe that mathematics even applies here is beyond me. I'm sure he wouldn't have said that without being certain. I think you think you're in Hawaii when you're in Tierra del Fuego.

Even MAR, in a brief moment of semi-clarity, agreed with me that you're fundamentally wrong. Many others, seemingly intelligent people, have disagreed with you here. There's really no difference between you and tygxc, you know. Both of you obstinate beyond belief.

Well, I'm completely aware that you're somewhat puddled but you did accept my argument that Games Theory cannot apply and you argued strongly with Elroch on that very point. I hope you are not so far gone that you're denying it. All else follows from that.

Game theory unquestionably does apply to all the forms of chess we are discussing here (all theorems whose conditions are satisfied).

Technically, basic chess falls into a different category to those versions with automatic repetition or move-count drawing rules (so do all versions of chess without automatic repetition or ply-without-irreversible-move rules). This is because basic chess games can be infinite. But all fall within game theory in general (and its subfield, games of perfect information).

@5881

"Game theory unquestionably does apply to all the forms of chess"
++ Yes. 'Games solved: Now and in the future' clearly applies to solving chess.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527 

People keep confusing weakly solved and strongly solved.

Is The Classical Chess Board Setup Flawless? Here's why I ask, and the answer may not be black or white, but both black and white: Why should white's kingside castling be to the right, but black's to the left? I see an unevenness in the game here. But if kings faced queens, both sides would castle perfectly even. It's not black or white . . . If two right-handed, or two left-handed players play, why should kings not face queens, and kingside castling be perfectly even (to the same side from each player's perspective?) Here are my thoughts on it: Let's say two armed men, both right-handed, or both left-handed, face each other, and both are carrying both a shield and a sword. When they face each other, will swords face swords, or will swords face shields? But let's say a left-handed man faces a right-handed man, will swords then face shields, or will swords face swords and shields face shields? Or if two couples, two kings and queens, walk up to one another, both having their partner on the same side, when they face each other, will kings face kings, or will they face the queens directly? Now why one cannot just shoot down what I'm asking about is because a game like chess involves two people. A car resembles a human in many ways because it is designed to be used by a human and thus needs to mirror many things the human driver's body performs. So a car has 'eyes' (lights), a 'mouth' (the horn), a 'heart' (the engine), 'blood' (the fuel), 'feet' (the wheels), 'eyelids' (windscreen wipers) etc... In the same way, chess is a reflection of the players. So if two right-handed, or two left-handed players play, why should the classical board setup not be as mentioned earlier, in view of these arguments? But if a left-handed player plays a right-handed player, I'd leave it just as it is. Yet even so, black should still have the chance to move first. Hmmm.... Your thoughts?

I didn't accept your argument that game theory cannot apply to chess; I accepted only your conclusion. 

I did also point that out earlier.

With some changes to the laws  (multiple possible ways) it can be turned into a two player zero sum game with perfect information, when game theory does apply.

A solution of chess with some such changes is what most posters are discussing. (An exception being @tygxc who wants the 50 move rule to simultaneouly apply and not apply, so is not talking about a possible game at all.)

@5884
"@tygxc who wants the 50 move rule to simultaneouly apply and not apply"
++ No, the 50 moves rule plays no role at all in solving chess. Ignore it.
The 3-fold repetition rule however is essential.

So is the rule in or out in the game you're offering to solve? It pays to know what the rules are before you start trying to solve a game.

You say here

We are talking about solving chess, i.e. the game with all its Laws of Chess.

So we could be forgiven for assuming the 50 move rule is to be included (along with the TCEC win and draw rules and simultaneously optional tablebase adjudication at 7 men and no such adjudication etc, judging from the examples you give.)

Are simultaneous resignations allowed? Is an arbiter involved?