Chess will never be solved, here's why

I would be rather surprised if it hasn't been proven to lose. Since you're so keen on proving everything, where is your proof that it hasn't been proven to lose? Do you have one? If not, why are you criticising others?

i dont have a proof of math standard that there isnt a proof out there (in fact, such a feat would be impossible), but I am proposing a lack of knowledge, which is falsifiable.  I will happily admit being wrong if you can find one, but you have to find one first.

I used the onboard chess.com engine to show that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white. It took me about five minutes. I captured with the pawn, which is logically stronger than the knight capture even if some engines disagree and then I deliberately made one substandard move for black, which was to defend e5 with Bd6, blocking the [awn on d7. Even so, black systematically improved the advantage over white and after ten or so moves, black's advantage was shown as about 4.5. There was nothing visible that even hinted that white could turn it round. Proof enough for me and probably for anyone who isn't unreasonable. 

ah but you see, math is VERY UNREASONABLE.  

Would that be the chess.com engine that scores the Nalimov tablebase 66.9 with just a couple of pawns on each side in a simple mate in 34? (Rybka playing both sides had access to the Nalimov tablebase in the game reviewed below.)

If it took you less than five minutes to win after 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6, then you either mated in less than ten moves or gave it less than 30 seconds per move. Which? Can you still prove it with 2 hours for 40 moves, repeating?

My wife's back from work and ting. I have some stuff to do.

However, I will say this. Lack of knowledge works both ways and I think a reasonable person would assume that a strong player can tell if something is definitely not losing by force.

Knowledge is often a logical construction on axioms, consisting of deduction. Axioms themselves cannot be deduced. They are mainly based on observation and common sense. Therefore, nothing we know ultimately depends on deduction. You can make whatever construction you wish on that. You can say that knowledge is impossible, and I wouldn't care to try to refute that. However, I think that knowledge is correctly defined as strong highly justified. belief.

have a good day.  

I think it could be solved but would take so much storage space that no one would ever do it.

there are so many cheaters in the platform it is ridiculous 

There's no point trying to have a serious argument with you. You're out of your depth completely and just pretend you aren't by asking pretentious questions which are also irrelevant or which could be answered easily if one could be bothered. You are clueless, wrt what is meaningful and what isn't, which is why you and ty are so suited.

I take it that means no.

Talk to Rattigan. You and he are well suited to one-another and I'm always available if you want to try to be intelligent. Incidentally, chess cannot be represented mathematically.

@7893

"it could be solved but would take so much storage space that no one would ever do it"
++ 10^17 positions is about 10^15 games. That can be stored.
The time (5 years) and the money $ 3,000,000 is more of a problem.

@7881

"Prof. van den Herik also starts by misquoting his own reference."
++ No, in his 2002 paper he improves the wording the 1994 PhD thesis of his student,
but he correctly acknowledges its provenance.

Professor > student
2002 > 1994

And I just Reached, 7900.

A multiple of 100.

Speaking of One Hundred.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/an-oldie-but-goody

Wikipaedia says (text in blue references in red).

A two-player game can be solved on several levels:[1][2]

Ultra-weak
Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any moves of the perfect play.
Weak
Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game.
Strong
Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position, even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides.

 [1] Victor Allis (1994). "PhD thesis: Searching for Solutions in Games and Artificial Intelligence" (PDF). Department of Computer Science. University of Limburg. Retrieved 2012-07-14.
[2] ^ H. Jaap van den Herik, Jos W.H.M. Uiterwijk, Jack van Rijswijck, Games solved: Now and in the future, Artificial Intelligence 134 (2002) 277–311.

The citations in Wikipaedia justify the preceding statement that a game can be solved on several levels (which corresponds with the content of both papers referred to). No citations follow the definitions themselves.

Prof. van den Herik says 

When discussing the solution of games, at least three different definitions of a solution
can be used. We use the terminology proposed by Allis [7]. Here 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.

[7] L.V. Allis, Searching for solutions in games and artificial intelligence, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Limburg, Maastricht, 1994.

The paper states that Allis' definitions from his cited paper are used, but the text he includes doesn't mean the same. That is not correctly acknowledging provenance; that is a misquote. 

Moreover he improves on it only in the sense that you improve on all the papers that you quote. I have already pointed out in #7691, #7717 and #7738 why the misquoted definition is unworkable. 

Just as well you have no intention of using it.

You're no better, Mr Rattigan. You aren't capable of drawing useful conclusions and allowing them to influence your fixed opinions.

     You wish to use the word "good" to describe the precise quality of moves. The OED has 48 definitions of this word, with dozens of sub-definitions giving us well over 100 shades of meaning. Not to mention dozens of colloquial uses from different areas of the English-speaking world. 

     For you to use this term to explain the quality of a move, you would have to add an explanation of exactly what you mean every time to be sure readers didn't quite reasonably think it meant something slightly different from your purpose. Everyone has their own opinion of the meaning of simple words; you often say you don't agree with someone's use of a word, noting a different definition you prefer.

     An agreed-upon unambiguous terminology preferable. That posters here  disagree about some terms does muddle the debate, but "simple" words with multiple shades of meaning will hardly solve this.

Not at all. Just like any other word with a specialised definition, that definition would be accepted and understood within context. That's how language works and those being critical don't understand language. It already has to be done with the sub-par and very ambiguous nomenclature these people insist upon. That is, words have to be understood in context. My simplifying suggestions make a lot of sense. Only to those who can think, of course.

No it doesn't have to be done. It's already been done. That's the point.

Only to those who take the trouble to find out what they're talking about, of course.