Chess will never be solved, here's why

Contrary to @Optimissed's claim, I am 100% certain that those who claim that 2. Ba6 loses are guessing. Of course those who are the subject of this knowledge may erroneously believe I am only guessing this, but they would be wrong to do so.

Well after all, I know whether I'm guessing or not. You keep reminding us about proof via assertion and now it's time to remind yourself about it. You're the one who's making an assertion. I'm saying that I know without doubt that the result is clear, which is my opinion, based on fact. You are asserting that I'm guessing but you cannot prove that I may not, for instance, have a better understanding than you do, rather than a worse one.

I also know other things that some claim cannot be known. People like, for instance, Professor Dawkins. Ring any bells??

edited ^ just one word added which makes all the difference as to whether it's intelligible.

You mean it was intelligible before?

Probably only to well-educated and intelligent people.

I mean, you aren't expected to understand anything and our semblance of communication is for form's sake.

@6595

"A hypothetical super power chess computer running at insane speeds might claim, prior to making its first move: Mate in 2,212,598,303,505,004,977"
++ No, that is mathematically impossible. There are only 10^44 legal positions, most of them nonsensical. After a search of width w candidate moves with depth d moves we reach w^d positions, assuming we reduce w to avoid transpositions.
This gives the following maximum depths for various widths:
width depth
2  148
3    93
4    74
5    63
6    57
7    52
8    49
9    46
10  44
11  42
12  41
13  40
14  38
15  37
16  37
17  36
18  35
19  34
20  34
Any checkmate in more than 148 moves must consist of forced moves only and by both sides.
The hypothetical super power chess computer running at insane speeds can only state, prior to making its first move: 'I offer a draw, because it is a draw'.

Is this, "Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width"?

I feel my post #6600 works equally well as a joke and as a statement of fact. It is only a shame that it was not post #6660.

So it isn't a statement of fact, any more than my claim is. Both claims are based on opinion concerning which facts are correct.

i dissagree about the statement

computers will likely solve chess in 10 years

solving  by meaning it will play the game perfectly from start to finish

the game will never stop being played though .. that statement is more correct

Thanks but that's been shown to be impossible.

Yeah well 200 years ago going to space and driving a car was too..

Not driving a car, obviously. But solving chess requires too much computing. It's been discussed in very great depth in this and other threads and apart from tygxc who believes it can be solved in five years, we think it might take millions of years at present computing speeds. That's actually being generous. You can work out how many games need to be solved, although of course there's redundancy.

Regarding the car, railways have existed since, I think, the late 1500s. By the 1700s, static engines were commonplace to draw wagons along the railways. It wouldn't be a big leap to imagine cars and horses and carts existed.

First railway line was 1825.