Chess will never be solved, here's why

I might wonder how come you know the word "succinctly".
Then I remember that form doesn't = content. You're a fool.

To nit pick it needn't necessarily pick a move. It could pick a draw claim under the 50 move or triple repetition rules or the offer or acceptance of a draw or nothing at all if it's not your move.

These are moves in the general sense - choice of action when it is your turn,

It could also leave you free to pick from a selection of moves (as in a strategy that takes one of the best moves from Syzygy when available),

I said it picked a move. I didn't actually say it always picked the same move in a given position.

I would prefer: 

A game strategy for a player is a function from the set of game positions with values that are (possibly empty) sets of actions for that player that are legal under the rules.

I am not sure why you want to permit an empty set. If it is your turn you need to do something!

Where a game position means simply a situation arising in a game.

As you are aware, it only needs to be the positions that can arise when the strategy is being used. Quite an important point, including practically - as eg 10^14 versus 10^20 positions for checkers (if I recall).

It got a thumbs up because it explains your misunderstandings and lack of ability to express yourself on many topics, and encapsulates your logical shortcomings quite succinctly.

@8067

"I know that better than any here."

wdym u literally said several false things about it.

im literally going into it as a profession, while you still make basic errors on your 'proofs' for stuff like strategy stealing.

"mathematicians were willing to believe rumors of counter examples" ++ Bad mathematicians...

++Actually no, it included the guy who ended up proving fermats theorem was among the people who believed it.  

imagine saying "bad mathematicians", lol. 

"contrary to zero evidence/logic" ++ I presented the evidence and the logic.
If you do not understand it, then that is your problem.

i understand that it is explicitly wrong and doesnt constitute evidence nor logic. 

"you need to address the fault in your strategy stealing claim" ++ There is no fault.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 wins for black, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 wins for white.

++ black doesnt have to play d5, you have a logical error.  we will just say that 1.  NF3 d6 could be a win for black.  

"Come up with any black win and there is a corresponding white win by strategy stealing.
Whatever black tries, white always has a way to lose a tempo. That is reductio ad absurdum."

++no that isnt. you SAY that there is a way to lose tempo, you have to prove it.

@8072

"a strategy-stealing strategy for white. It would need to cover EVERY black response."
++ It is up to those that put forward chess being a black win as a plausible hypothesis to come up with evidence supporting that claim. For example 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 being a black win. Then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 is a white win.
Whatever possible black wins the proponents of the black wins hypothesis come up with,
there is a corresponding strategy stealing by white that disproves it.
It is up to the proponents of black wins to come up with plausible black strategies.
Then the strategy stealing reduces those hypotheses ad absurdum.

Imagine a chess position of X paradigms. 

Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good. 

Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka? 

No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could. 

the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc. 

nothing in the world can change that. 

So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca. 

If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite. 

So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago. 

If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved. 

Don't forget, there's no proof available because the light coming from that star is millions of years old. Maybe it was changed to scrambled eggs in the meantime.

I think you're wrong. I think my son's Masters Degree dissertation (MMath) was about the contents of stars. But it is meant as an equivalency in a different way. Scrambled eggs is ridiculous but can't be proven not to be true because we can't analyse the light being emitted from that star NOW.

Chess being a forced win for black is ridiculous in exactly the same way and it's difficult to prove that untrue, too!

Chess, however, cannot be represented mathematically. ...

In his physics thesis he discovered evidence for an unknown state of matter and since then, it seems to have been somewhat confirmed. His thesis was to represent magnetism in terms of fermionic spins. I asked him if chess could be reduced to a set of equations such that if the equations were solved, we would could solve positions that way. He said no, it's impossible. That means, in reality, it can't be done say within 50 years at the present rate of progress.

He's a brilliant mathematician. He's performed maths that NO-ONE has managed to do before.

No that's a static depiction.