Chess will never be solved, here's why

I believe it happens to some people, when they're completely intent on winning a point, where there's no point they can logically win. So they make fools of themselves, but I'm sure that can't be you and I've misunderstood.

Another example of a very small probability that is not zero is the probability of winning against a much better chess player. Say one of us against the latest Stockfish.

This can be intuitively seen to be true by considering a deeper evaluation of the moves played by the two players and observing that there is a finite probability on two consecutive half moves that the weaker player plays a better move than the stronger player. With a reasonable assumption about some degree of independence, this means there is a finite probability of this happening on enough consecutive moves to achieve the victory.

The finite probability involved for this extreme reverse domination is so absurdly small as to be safe to believe it would not happen in practice, but no-one with an understanding of probability could seriously deny it is not a strictly positive probability. (It is of course not the only way a win could be secured, but emulates a typical theme of mathematical proofs of finding an easy route to the conclusion rather than dealing with all the inessential details).

@Optimissed

You've no doubt misunderstood something. 

People generally mean different things by words according to context. You use the word "know" when "guess" would be the appropriate word in the context of solving chess, so in common with @tygxc fall into @Elroch's "fallacy of proof by (repeated) assertion".

SF doesn't claim to know the result after 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6; it gives an evaluation.

That could be loosely interpreted as a degree of confidence.

In that case it is more confident of winning this (drawn) position.

So obviously SF's "degree of confidence" is not knowledge.

You claim absolute knowledge of the correct evaluation of positions such as the first (by assertion). If your use of the word "knowledge" is in any way useful in this context then you should be able to crap all over SF (or indeed anything). But you always seem reluctant to demonstrate.

bxa6 is stronger than Nx. Lines are opened, the doubled pawns are irrelevant and black's Nb8 is nearer the centre. Anyone who believes that 2. Ba6 does not necessarily lose may be demonstrating perfect knowledge of a very one-sided logical principle, which nevertheless has a balancing corollary; but is demonstrating incompetence at chess. Such an opinion can be ignored.

I'm not actually interested in discussing it with you. I think you're no longer in possession of your faculties, as a matter of fact, and incapable of understanding counter-arguments. I'm not going to discuss the meaning of knowledge with you because you've shown yourself clearly, over the years, and I have no doubt that such a conversation would be completely without profit to either of us. If anyone here who disagrees with me is close to being my intellectual equal, then I'll discuss it. 

Don't think you'll find many people willing to admit to that.

Good. In that case we understand each other perfectly. Your problem is that you only want to win arguments. You're not interested in honest discussions. You're relying on a faulty understanding of an ideological principle; that we cannot know anything. How do you know that though? Yet you're incapable of understanding that I just showed your line of argument for what it is: ideologically hidebound and stupid, because you're incapable of recognising and admitting to your own motives.

Anyone truly smart would not have spent over 300 forum pages arguing about this topic.  That would make almost everyone on chess.com MORE than your intellectual equals.

I'm not going to argue with you; but to explain something. Stockfish is designed to "explain" analysis wrt degrees of confidence and is completely incapable of making judgements unless they're programmed ones. That makes it different from humans. It does not think: it calculates.

It's your job to interpret the calculations. If you are not capable of making a judgement where the judgement ought to be clear, that's your failing, however good you believe you may be at chess. There are different positions, where a definitive judgement may not be possible but this is not one of them. Another type of judgement is used to discern between what we can be sure of and what we cannot. That doesn't function well in very many people.

If you think that I am responsible for 300 pages of c-r-a-p then that demonstrates exactly how bright you are and it isn't a positive answer.

Basically, everyone has a choice: to be honest and try to learn from others, or to try to defend their mistaken thinking. When they don't, they cannot progress and will never understand much. It isn't too much to ask that others should try to defend their mistaken views, in a manner that will allow them to learn; and to accept that they are just being egotistic, instead of pretending that the other person is always wrong. So try to understand why I think the way I do. Given that you've demonstrated your limitations pretty clearly, by not trying to understand another person's thought processes before condemning them, you've already shown yourself as intellectually inept. It's another judgement call but the jury came back on Rattigan years ago. That isn't in question. OK so that's just how I think when confronted with c-r-a-p.

Thankyou. Any decent player should understand that 2. Ba6 loses. Not probably but definitely.

<<<People generally mean different things by words according to context. You use the word "know" when "guess" would be the appropriate word in the context of solving chess, so in common with @tygxc fall into @Elroch's "fallacy of proof by (repeated) assertion".

SF doesn't claim to know the result after 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6; it gives an evaluation.>>>

This would be funny if not for the fact that it's totally <<AAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH>>
"Fallacy of proof by (repeated) assertion" where it's just a repeated assertion that someone else is committing that supposed fallacy and where that repeated assertion is made simply to try to avoid having ever to think.

The idea that we cannot ever know anything unless we're told we're allowed to by a computer is the first step towards madness. Well, on reflection, maybe more advanced than the first step.

@Optimissed  And yet you are still here and adding to the pile.  It seems you love arguing about pointless things more than chess.  Perhaps a debate team reject?  Also you are apparently not so good at math as you think, as you joined this pile of c-r-a-p thread on page 2.  Since this is page 328, you have been a contributor to this nonsense for 327 pages.  You must be single, possibly divorced, as no wife would put up with you hyper-narcissism.  You are so in love with yourself and your own opinions, there could be no room for anyone else.  Then there's this gem: 

Actually not even then.

It can show a mate score then change its mind to +/-152.xx on occasion.

Interesting idea. I've only seen it happen without tablebase access (but then I don't have Syzygy tablebases so I wouldn't see it any other way). 

So far as I know SF uses only Syzygy tablebases and they don't give a mate length.

Why don't they announce "M?" instead of "152.xx"?

Some engines come to the conclusion there is a mate based on incomplete analysis. Sometimes the incompleteness turns out to be significant later, as the mate gets at least pushed beyond the horizon.

No, it's definite. It's only "highly likely" according to SOME interpretations of evidence from a computer which you said yourself is not programmed to give definite decisions. You argued very well in complete support of my arguments but perhaps you weren't aware of it.

Put it this way. It isn't a sacrifice because it doesn't achieve anything in return for the bishop.

Haha if I were on any debate team I'd be their star performer, although my glory days are well in the past by now. It seems you love behaving like a child but I have no need to continue to draw your attention to it after this comment.

To be accurate:

(a) It's a sacrifice because Black can take the bishop.

(b) You can't see anything that is achieved in return for the bishop so you're willing to use proof by assertion to say it's fact.

(c) You can't prove the sacrifice is not perfect whether or not it achieves anything in return. You can't prove that the position is not, for example, drawn before and after the move (except by assertion, of course).