Chess will never be solved, here's why

@6919

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is irrelevant to solving chess.
We know that loses by force for white.
It is not necessary to burn computer engine time on something we already know.
Such trivial obstacles are needed if you want to not solve chess.

Relevant questions:
How to draw against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3
How to draw against 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3, 2 Nc3, 2 Bc4, 2 d4
How to draw against 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5, 3 Bc4, 3 Nc3, 3 d4
Etc, etc.

that was a lot to take in

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

One might have guaranteed that you wouldn't understand why they overlap. In the sense in which you mean it, weak solving is a sub-set within the set of vegetables.

Your problem or the problem experienced by anyone who thinks like you (which is wrong way) originates from the fact that unlike with vegetables, where we can just look at the vegetable and determine if it's a cabbage or not, we cannot just look at a chess position and determine whether it is relevant to a weak solution. Therefore, at the very least, a very large excess over the number of positions that turn out to be relevant to a weak solution must be examined very carefully. I don't expect you to understand that, of course. However, it is the main reason why the nomenclature is completely unsuitable and the whole thing needs to be rethought by competent people.

No. He was right and you were wrong. Best to see it and move on, rather than a vain attempt to obfuscate.

So the discussion between tygxc, Eylon and yourself, whilst not doubt scintillatingly and extravagantly interesting to those concerned, doesn't bear the relationship to a practical means of solving chess which a blind ferret in a barrel of tar bears to an RAF pilot with a pair of exceptionally good opera glasses, sitting in the stalls of a theatre in very good lighting conditions. I passed the RAF pilots' vision test and even though I'm not an expert on ferrets, I think I'm right and that you and all your ilk are wasting other people's time.

You could never in a million years actually support that in a rational debate. Just innuendo and the fact that you choose to place your confidence in a useless and irrelevant pretence because you always support authority, since you represent authority yourself, or see yourself as so doing. You, sir, are a Flat Earther!

     If people wish to engage in a circular discussion of this (or any) topic, delving into minutia of any aspect, that is their choice. They may well find it entertaining and informative.

     Anyone who finds this a waste of time has the simple option of not bothering to follow this thread.

They also have the option of making an occasional statement, for form's sake, regarding just why some of the participants here, although they may seem to speak with authority, are misleading others because they're incapable of thinking clearly and well.

Occasional?

In comparison with the frequency with which you and others talk your nonsense.

It's clear that there are half a dozen of you who monopolise the conversation. No problem really, except that none of you are seeing the reality with any clarity. For some inexplicable reason, you're all continuing to try to discredit tygxc's views, apparently unaware that they've been shown to be irrelevant. That in itself illustrates your priorities, which certainly don't include understanding the topic yourselves. 

Oh have you encountered an underwater obstruction, sir? No damage, I trust.

@Elroch 6925
If you wanted to solve chess and some naïve person entrusted you with the task, how would you approach it? What's the first thing you need to do, before you can proceed to actual analysis of lines?

First thing you need to do is understand what "solve chess" means.

First thing you need is to understand that you're mimicking the normal reaction of incompetence to being challenged. 

Normally, "solving" something means to view it as a puzzle, which has one or more correct answers. So you find the answer. Chess is different. Assuming that it's drawn by best play, there's a large number of lines that are drawn by best play. Logically, none is better than the other. However, a project to try to determine the best lines of play to answer every move might be envisaged. That's a mistake, of course, since "best" is according to a subjective viewpoint, providing the condition of not losing by force is fulfilled. Also, "every move" includes a majority of rubbish nonsense moves, which are really irrelevant to the game of chess.

Then again, it may be psychological, in that we're looking for lines which have the best chance of winning. Given that all this is nonsense and I could continue to write correct things ad infinitum and you probably wouldn't follow them, I would suggest that we revert to plan. You try to think of the first thing that needs to be done, to solve chess. Same applies to Elroch, because if he didn't understand my previous comment to you and the reason for it, he seems to be indicating that he won't follow much of this either.

Thanks a lot. I do really appreciate the positives, all the more so because I never expect them. I hope you realise that you're in a non-vocal group. I hesitate to say "minority" since plenty of people have criticised the standard of commentary here.

@6936

"First thing you need to do is understand what "solve chess" means."

++Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and
strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.

The only meaningful to discuss for Chess is weakly solving.
For all practical purpose Chess is already ultra-weakly solved,
and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
Strongly solving Chess would generate a 32-men table base
and need to determine a strategy for all 10^44 legal positions, that is too much.
That leaves weakly solving, and that needs 10^17 relevant positions,
which present computers can calculate in 5 years, like GM Sveshnikov said.

Just like weakly solving Checkers, pruning is allowed. Schaeffer calculated only 19 of the 300 tournament openings, eliminating 200 by transposition and 81 by pruning.
Just like weakly solving Losing Chess the 'best first' heuristic is allowed.
Just like weakly solving Connect Four it is allowed and beneficial to incorporate game knowledge. That is also what Prof. van den Herik wrote.