Chess will never be solved, here's why

"it loses. It doesn't probably lose"

There are two senses a position can lose, empirically and analytically.

Empirically, Ba6 loses (or... probably loses? it's the same thing). You could run billions of high level engine games and you probably wouldn't even get one draw. The reason anyone wins or draws with Ba6 is if their opponent makes serious blunders. Mostly at very low ELO.

Analytically, we don't know. Nobody has convincingly solved chess for Ba6. No amount of empirical evidence will show that Ba6 is losing unless it constitutes an exhaustive search. In all likelihood it is losing. But we do not have certainty either way.

Given the title of the thread is about solving chess, the context here is that we are talking about whether a position is an analytical loss, and not an empirical one.

I don't agree with that. Empirically just means "in fact and according to observation" (my very quick definition but it isn't important.) Analysis is no different. It either loses or not and this distinction between analytic and empirical is false. At the very best it depends on the empirical evidence being wrong. But if it's wrong, it's wrong. So no.

@6559

"The first move advantage is enough to force a win."
++ No, it is not. You cannot queen a tempo.
The first move advantage diminishes with each move made. Engine-wise it starts at +0.33 reflecting the extra tempo and then gradually evaporates to 0.00.
A tempo is not enough to win. A pawn is. A bishop is.
It is curious that some people refuse to accept that a tempo is not enough to win,
and some people refuse to accept that a pawn, or a bishop is enough to win.

"some forced checkmates are many hundreds of moves long"
++ Yes, but those positions where there is such a forced checkmate cannot be reached from the initial position by optimal play from both sides.
In ICCF players are allowed to claim a 7-men table base win that exceeds 50 moves without pawn move or capture. Such claims never occur. No 7-men table base win claims occur at all, all decided games are by resignation after a human error. 22% of draws are by 7-men endgame table base draw claims.
All ICCF games are over long before the 50-moves rule would be triggered, the longest game was a draw in 119 moves. 50-moves draw claims do not occur in ICCF.

@6581

"There are two senses a position can lose, empirically and analytically."
++ We are only concerned about analytically here in this context of game solving.
From the AlphaZero paper we know that 1 g4? is the worst of the 20 possible moves.
Empirically white wins 29%, draws 22% and loses 48%.
The late IM Basman played it with success at IM level.
Analytically 1 g4? loses by force.

Steinitz "knew" he could give God pawn and move and still win.

Do you know what "loses by force" means? I don't think you do.

@6586
I know, you do not. I provided analysis.
Try to find an improvement for white. You will fail.

Oh, so you analyzed 1.g4 to a forced loss...

I haven't been following this topic so I didn't realize this line of argument would bring up more of your "proofs." I'll just quietly go away now.

Unfortunately, that type of statement discredits everything else he says. It's like me, firmly believing in the paranormal and refusing to be side-tracked by those claiming that it couldn't possibly exist because "they know better". I very much doubt the "analysis" is correct and 1. g4 loses by force. I very much doubt that any first move by white can lose by force.

A move such as 1. g4 develops a bishop but is also the beginnings of a kingside pawn storm. One possible, natural move to counter it is 1. ...d5. Quite possibly, both sides would be safer castling 0-0-0. A win by force from move one sounds outlandish, although not as completely crazy as imagining that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 possibly does not lose by force.

It is very likely that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses by force. It is not impossible that it does not.

Some people have difficulty understanding very low probability possibilities when they are more than trivial.

For example, I would say you would understand that tossing N fair coins and getting N heads is possible for any number N. When N is, say 1,000,000, this probability is so tiny that it is for all practical purposes zero. But it is still a small positive number and anyone who claimed it was impossible to have a million heads from a million coin tosses (or that the probability of this event is zero) is easily refuted.

If you were to study the process of Bayesian inference, and to understand that inductive learning cannot do better than this the fact that an inductive conclusion never reaches certainty would be as obvious as that N heads has a strictly positive probability.

Hello

@6590
"understanding very low probability possibilities"
++ There are no probabilities, this is deterministic. A position is either drawn, won, or lost.

Sigh.

Any unfamiliar position has a deterministic result. Your faulty reasoning implies that this means the only belief states about it are certainty about one of the possible results.

Your reasoning is (obviously) wrong.

@6593

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses by force for white. That is not 'very likely', there are no coin flips involved.
1 g4? loses by force for white. Anybody who doubts that, find an improvement for white @6584.
The initial position is a draw. Evidence has been provided above,  inductively from ICCF and deductively from 1 pawn = 3 tempi, and 1 pawn needed to queen.
Those are facts we know.

I do not know if 1 e4 c5 draws as well as 1 e4 e5. Probably both draw.
I cannot put a percentage on it. They either draw or not.
I do not know if 1 e4 e6 or 1 e4 c6 draw or not, probably not.
I cannot put a percentage on it. They either draw or not.
I do not know if 1 f3 loses for white or not, probably not.
I cannot put a percentage on it. It either loses or not.

Let me introduce you to the well-known fallacy of "proof by assertion" (also "proof by repeated assertion"). You are a keen user of this so I am sure you will be pleased to now know the correct term for what you do.

Wiki
"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation.[1] The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to a lack of challengers (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[3]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1] Modern politics contains many examples of proofs by assertion. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation, and in order to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.[4]"

I agree with tygxc, despite his complete and utter inability to argue well. We are not certain about a result if there's genuine uncertainty. The correct argument is that there is no uncertainty at all, re. the proper result of 1. e5 e5 2. Ba6 and that you have artificially manufactured that uncertainty. It is merely your assertion that we do not know the result so you are arguably as guilty as those you argue against, regarding proof by assertion. It's just that you and I are far more eloquent than ty.

As I said before. Post your 10/10 wins against SF15. You should have no difficulty if there's no uncertainty.

I'm nearly sure you can't have been addressing me. But even so, there's no accounting for the complete confusion in the minds of some people.

Does that mean you respectfully decline?