Chess will never be solved, here's why

Then how come there’s a proof of solving for checkers?

     All that needs to be done to solve chess is to follow every possible line through every possible response until the established 7-piece is reached and shows that attempt to be a win for either side or a draw. Should any line of play for either side yield wins in all permutations, chess can be said to be "won", if no such line exists, chess is a "draw".

     I am well aware that for practical purposes the difficulties posed by this approach are insurmountable today. To declare that they can NEVER be overcome--that no one will ever come up with a brilliant new approach in methodology or computer technology--would be a bit of hubris on our part.

     From the point of view of anyone here coming up with a real solution, the conversation is ridiculous, but it seems that there are a lot of people who like to speculate on the subject. 

     I do believe that some way forward may well be found. Whether your proposal is the only possible answer is doubtful. No one can know what presently unconsidered idea might someday prove fruitful.

     I also hold a pessimistic view of the not-too-distant future, but the struggle for simple survival has taken most of the efforts of the great majority of mankind throughout history and progress has continued nonetheless.

     I guess I just don't believe that your opinion to be the be-all and end-all consideration of the problem. There may well be someone thinking about this question right now that will see it in a whole new light and work out an approach that neither you nor anyone else has anticipated. Or such a person might be born in the next 500 years. 

     I believe that our present worldwide civilization may well collapse under the weight of massive population delocation necessitated by climate change. This doesn't mean that all progress in all areas of human thought will regress or petrify, even if most of its energy is spent on restoration for quite some time. Remember the OP's question says "NEVER".

It goes without saying that there's a 3rd option of an algorithmic breakthrough that culls enough for brute force to become feasible but cannot solve chess alone (ergo, a hybrid solution)...except by you, I guess .

@8844

"to solve chess is to follow every possible line through every possible response until the established 7-piece"
++ This is false. You keep repeating it. "every possible line through every possible response" means strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base of all 10^44 legal positions and that is not feasible with present technology.

That leaves only weakly solving, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
It is only necessary to look at every reasonable white move through 1 black response until a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-folfd repetition.

@8841

"Nor has anything been undisputedly established"
++ Disputed is not refuted.

@8838

"wheres your data on the number of errors"
++ Another case: Tata Steel Masters 2023
91 games: 60 draws + 31 decisive games

Assuming Chess a white or black win:
60/91 = Poisson(1; lambda; 0) + Poisson (3; lambda; 0) + Poisson (5; lambda; 0) + ...
No lambda satisfies this equation.
Thus Chess cannot be a white or black win.
Thus Chess is a draw.

Assuming Chess a draw:
31/91 = Poisson(1; lambda; 0) + Poisson (3; lambda; 0) + Poisson (5; lambda; 0) + ...
lambda = 0.57 errors / game average satisfies this.

Games with 0 errors: 51
Games with 1 error: 29
Games with 2 errors: 9
Games with 3 errors: 2
Games with 4 or more errors: 0

Of course it can be known, @Optimissed. Huge numbers of people "know" all sorts of things that are either uncertain or untrue. But rigour is something else.

AI chess computers beat any human player. AI knows better than us, it is solved. 

tru

THATS NOT DATA

"Assuming Chess a white or black win:
60/91 = Poisson(1; lambda; 0) + Poisson (3; lambda; 0) + Poisson (5; lambda; 0) + ...
No lambda satisfies this equation.
Thus Chess cannot be a white or black win.
Thus Chess is a draw."

this is objectively false.  even if the assumed poisson distribution were true, this data in no way proves that chess is a draw.

its a probability distribution.

not an absolute.

jesus christ you probably failed middle school math

tygxc the tata steel isnt error data.

you cant be this blind.

@8864

"jesus christ you probably failed middle school math"
++ I do not know about Jesus Christ, or about you, but I studied more math than any here...

@8863

"THATS NOT DATA"
++ Of course that is data.
The data are: 91 games = 60 draws + 31 decisive games.

The explanation is:
Chess is a draw.
Games with 0 errors: 51
Games with 1 error: 29
Games with 2 errors: 9
Games with 3 errors: 2
Games with 4 or more errors: 0

Now come up with an alternative explanation:
Chess is ... a draw / a white win / a black win.
Games with 0 errors: ...
Games with 1 error: ...
Games with 2 errors: ...
Games with 3 errors: ...
Games with 4 or more errors: ...

I dont need to "come up with an alternative explanation"

All I need to do is show how yours isnt sufficient proof.

I learnt this in 5th grade math.

You claim a proof but all you can give is an explanation.  typical.

There was multiple games at tata steel with 4 or more errors lmao

@8867

"I dont need to come up with an alternative explanation" ++ You cannot.

@8868
"There was multiple games at tata steel with 4 or more errors" ++ No.

Abdusattorov_Nodirbek vs Van_Foreest_Jorden 

Erigaisi_Arjun vs Carlsen_Magnus

had 5+ errors

and thats just from the last 2 rounds.

So your "data"

is OBJECTIVELY WRONG.