Chess will never be solved, here's why

@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.

that wikipedia is innaccurate and untrustworthy is actually a myth.  are the sources to be checked and taken with a grain of salt?  yes.  but that doesnt make wikipedia incredibly reliable.

you still need to prove to me that black doesnt win.

@7829

"checkers had simplification in addition to chinook. " ++ What simplification? Transition tables?

"weak is not all reasonable moves, it is all moves." ++ If the good white moves cannot win, then the bad white moves cannot win either. It is pointless to explore 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

"it is most certainly a math error" ++ No there is no math error.
Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17 relevant positions.

you just made another error.

you need to prove Ba6 is bad before you can discard it.

@7835

"I propose that that Tempo is actually a disadvantage."
++ It is easy to disprove that by strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a black win, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a white win.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win.
For all possible black wins you can propose there is a corresponding white win.

okay, prove it.  prove it objectively.  100%.  

you cant just give two examples and claim you have a full strategy stealing proof.  

fun fact, that proof doesnt exist.

you have to prove that every position that black reaches could also be reached by white.

you make the assumption that black would go e5 btw

"Taking Three as the subject to reason about--
A convenient number to state--
We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
By One Thousand diminished by Eight.

"The result we proceed to divide, as you see,
By Nine Hundred and Ninety Two:
Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be
Exactly and perfectly true.

Lewis Carroll was an expert on logic who published numerous peer reviewed articles on the subject, so I think we can safely assume his method is superior to yours.

There are 3 x 10^0 relevant positions.

The problem is we also need a solution for the irrelevant ones.

i am willing to bet money i dont even have on this, are you?

here is an image demonstrating the simplification that checkers had/has. it's "relevant search space"  now, with chess, we cant prove what is relevant or not yet.  we can make guesses, and in the case of if it was the case that white would have a draw/win those guesses would speed up the algorithm somewhat, but they are still guesses and can be wrong.

making clear, im saying that i am willing to bet money i do not have on the statement that we have not proved that black cannot win every single game.