Chess will never be solved, here's why

Perhaps that doesn't align with most normal perceptions of slavery but I'll take your point because, for you, it's a special relationship. Quite similar to the one I have with my wife, after being with her nearly 40 years. In your case, I wonder how much the significant person's actions and ways of living are an image created by something that can be considered akin to a propaganda industry? Even so, I don't doubt that many people can and do form a special, personal bond with the subject of such an image, which helps them during the course of their lives. I also wonder, though, what would be your reaction to the suggestion that such help may not the product of the subject of the image (being held up as an example of rightness and goodness) so much as the product of the strong feeling of trust in itself.

@7911

"a weakly solved game has an algorithm for perfect play"
++ No, a weakly solved game has
a strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
A strategy is no algorithm.
A strategy can be a set of moves like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination, most likely for Chess.

@7909

"By definition chess can be represented by math."
++ Yes, of course.
Tromp has proven a bijection between chess positions and natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ..., N.
Chess can be described as a finitary relation between the set of natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ... N} and itself: position x can lead to positions y1, y2, y3, ... yn.
The initial position 1 can lead to positions 2, 3, 4, ... 21.
Those can then lead to positions 22, 23, 24, 25... 421.
And so on.
The game-theoretic value of all 7-men positions is known.

@7938

"a breakthrough in quantum computing is necessary"
++ No, present cloud computers can weakly solve chess in 5 years.

"whether black wins or white wins (with perfect play) is controversial" ++ No, it is a draw.

"whether e4 or d4 is the best first move" ++ Both draw.

at marattigan, you must not get out that much, if thats the stupidest, you sound dumb

I had a previous failed marriage. It was actually to a Jewish woman, originally from Montreal. I was running a small business which failed when there were general strikes in the UK in the early 80s, although I managed to get my money out, I was in debt. There was naturally a lot of stress. Although I openly admit my atheism, ever since she left me and abducted our daughter, illegally back to Canada, it's seemed as though there was something or somebody looking down on me and and protecting me. I met Christine very soon after, because I started volunteering for a kind of charity which she was running. Initially it was just a friendship but then we decided to stick together and have a child. It was hard to marry because the Canadian Supreme Court managed to lose the record of my divorce. It would be difficult to sort it out but maybe unnecessary. Our son is a member of this site, married, with a 6 month old child and an extremely good job. His wife is a hospital consultant. Christine had thought she wasn't going to live long but she's one of a very few people who seems to have made a full recovery from very severe ulcerative colitis, which nearly killed her before we met, at exactly the time my wife left me. She's 64. I'm 8 years older. She's a Christian. I think the entire saga of religion is made up but I would never argue that religion is a bad thing. I see it as a personal decision with no moral judgement one way or the other. I'm glad you appear to be happy doing what you're doing.

A lot of people here seem to make moral judgements on others, regarding just about everything. Whether they've had Covid jabs, whether they disagree on points some regard as moral issues, and so forth. Definitely an insidious pressure on many people to conform to a sort of humdrum, mediocre acceptance of complete ordinariness and basically maybe even a lack of confidence and hope. One person I know quite well here happened to mention by accident that she had special delegates passes that could and did enable her to meet many very famous politicians and also to vote for Presidential candidates and people were poo-pooing and saying she was making it up. I knew she was telling the truth because I had been able to work out who she was, within a small percentage of inaccuracy. Maybe I am a lot cleverer than most others here and I make no bones about it, probably to rub their noses in it, because there are people here who really care and are very unpleasant to any who stick their noses above the sandbags. Fortunately, most people on this site don't care and are here to play chess.

#6
Chess is a draw
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf 

@7911

"a weakly solved game has an algorithm for perfect play"
++ No, a weakly solved game has
a strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
A strategy is no algorithm.
A strategy can be a set of moves like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination, most likely for Chess.

Yes but not a precise algorithm. If I find myself two pawns up with a winning attack I may choose strategies. There may be some danger in the winning attack whereas using the threat of the attack to get the pieces off with an easily won ending is a strategy I might adopt. An engine might be more likely to go for the winning attack. The endgame strategy might be the best course for me because there's no danger. Such a strategy may be much more complex than the strategy of pursuing the winning attack but the tactics are easier. An engine might have difficulty in finding such a strategy by chance.