Chess will never be solved, here's why

@7813

"10^29241?" ++ Yes: https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html 

"It is solved for a 7-piece endgame but not the entire game." ++ Correct.

"You can't determine if a move suggest by Stockfish in a complex middle game truly the 'best' possible." ++ Yes, we can. For a black move: if it ends up with a 7-men endgame table base draw, then it is justified in retrospect. For white all reasonable alternatives need to be explored.

"The game would turn from a competetive sport to something like Tic-Tac-Toe"
++ Yes, that is the case for Checkers, Nine Men's Morris, Connect Four, Losing Chess...

How do you know that the moves made before the 7-piece endgame were perfect?

by the way, if you do somehow manage to successfully prove that black doesnt win with perfect play by white, you will be the first person in the world to do so.

he doesnt.  thats one of his errors

i would look at the wikipedia article for solving chess, as well as the proof for solving Chomp.  

@7815

"thats using an imperfect evaluator, and >99% is not 100%.  thats how math works."
++ That is not an evaluator, the 7-men endgame table base is the perfect evaluator.
The game ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw, so the black moves need not be questioned. The white moves need to be questioned and alternatives explored, as there is a < 1% probability that some better white move is avaible.

I would recommend reading the wikipedia article on solving chess.  tygxc makes a lot of assumptions that would not be accepted in a math proof, so its easier if you just get it from the experts instead of having myself try to repeat the step by step explanation.

you need to prove that the game ends in a 7 men table base draw

prove it

im still waiting for the proof that black doesnt win with perfect play.  

@7803

"Checkers had a simplification algorithm/position"
++ Checkers used Chinook and an endgame table base.
Chess has Stockfish and a 7-men endgame table base.

"weak versus strong solving are, for our purposes, essentially identical"
++ No, not at all. Strong = all white moves, all black responses.
Weak = all reasonable white moves, only 1 black response.

"response to your math error" ++ I made no math error, the math is correct.

you do realize that by definition you cant prove to me that black doesnt win with perfect play on black's end?  by definition to prove that would be a weak solution for chess, of which does not exist. 

@7812

"you need to prove that the game ends in a 7 men table base draw"
++ Look at this game: https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164344 it ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw, so none of black's moves need to be questioned.
Alternatives for the white moves need to be explored to weakly solve Chess.

both of those are factually incorrect.

checkers had simplification in addition to chinook.  

weak is not all reasonable moves, it is all moves.

also, it is most certainly a math error.  I am willing to bet $10,000 on it.

@7827

"you cant prove to me that black doesnt win with perfect play on black's end?"
++ Of course we have evidence to that: millions of human and engine games especially ICCF WC Finals drawn games. White has the advantage of the initiative: 1 tempo, but not enough to win.

"by definition to prove that would be a weak solution for chess"
++ No, that is an ultra-weak solution only. a weak solution also shows how to draw. 

no, I propose that black should have been able to win that from the starting position.  disagree? prove me wrong.

wikipedia articles get fact checked and peer reviewed more often than news organizations.

@7823

"I would recommend reading the wikipedia article on solving chess."
++ That is no good source. It even starts by misquoting its own reference.

"get it from the experts" ++ Prof. van den Herik is an expert. Wikipedia authors are not.

"Of course we have evidence to that: millions of human and engine games especially ICCF WC Finals drawn games. White has the advantage of the initiative: 1 tempo, but not enough to win."

it could be billions of games.  they dont mean ANYTHING in terms of proof.

I propose that that Tempo is actually a disadvantage.  disagree?  prove me wrong.

@7833

"wikipedia articles get fact checked and peer reviewed"
++ No, not at all. They get edited by amateurs.

actually no the wiki article has peer reviewed sources, so its just as fine.