Chess will never be solved, here's why

@10625

"We can't conclude that perfection has been reached."
++ We can, because all games end in draws.
That can only be if Chess is a draw and if all errors come in pairs that undo each other.
Any unpaired error would cause a decisive game.

@10630

"which of the quadrillion opposite coloured bishop endings with more than 7 men are known? You do understand that in chess, the exact position of all of the pieces matters?"
++ That is why it takes 2 ICCF (grand)masters to agree on the draw after ample consideration with engines of the exact position when both have no hope of winning. It would be pointless to force them to continue until a 50-moves draw, i.e. 500 days or almost 2 years.

Not all opposite colored bishop endings are draws, but this one is
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360123 
Not all rook endings are draws, but this one is
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360174

@10656

"Proof?" ++ Because the 2 ICCF (grand)masters after ample consultation of their engines agreed on the draw. Even I can see those are 2 draws.

@Optimissed has a point tho, all of you except him seem to be going in circles. he kind of is the only one bringing up new topics while @Elroch and all the others just seem to contradict him no matter how valid his argument is.

just because im only interested in the 8x8 solution doesnt mean that the P v NP of a generalized form of chess wouldnt give insight on the 8x8 solution, besides, upon a little more reflection, the verification is on too high an order to apply to p v np

@10656

"Proof?" ++ Because the 2 ICCF (grand)masters after ample consultation of their engines agreed on the draw. Even I can see those are 2 draws.

@10655

"the same engine as the ICCF games"
++ And the same time 5 days/move?
Blitz games do not count.

Why do you imagine I don't mean what I say? I certainly don't see much value in playing lip service to people who can't understand that they are making fools of themselves by going round and round in circles arguing completely unproductively with tygxc. Elroch isn't bright enough to add anything useful. It's as simple as that.

I do agree that you can't always rely on rules of thumb. But for instance, take the Kp vs KNN ending. There's a diagram used where you can enter the pawn position and you immediately know if it's a win, because it's a rule of thumb that depends on how far advanced the pawn is and which file it's on.

Bad example @Optimissed; it has millions of exceptions. (Very good example actually.)

tygxc and Elroch are too much like each other and they both have weaknesses. The rest of you allow yourselves to be led by them and so can you imagine what it's like for someone who knows their conversation is unproductive and that it can't be anything else? MAR is a troll and deliberately messes around with people by talking rubbish, Dio is a troll who is almost incapable of making arguments concerning subject matter, you hang on Elroch's coat tails. You say you're a second year maths student at university? Act like it. Stop pandering to them and use your brain if you have one. Don't be scared of them. Of course they'll try to make it seem you don't know what you're talking about. That's what they always do and you have to learn sometime or other.

Maybe. Well, I suppose you don't and you can be another failure. I've been too busy to be involved in the past few days, I return and it's the same nothing arguments. Just two fools arguing that black's white or an indistinct shade of grey.

The question if chess can be solved is about mathematicics, not about computers. Someone Said the amount of possible moves is infinite, its not. Infinity is actualy infinitly much bigger. Therfore, with enought time (not infinitly Long time

Chess could be solved in the way that we could map every possible move and counter move.

@10666

"Those games were all at 5 sec fixed time per move"
++ So you reject correspondence games at 5 days/move and rely on blitz games of 5 s/moves...

No, I reject your conclusions from those games.

"blunder rate at 35 min per move was greater than its blunder rate at 1 sec per move"

++ nonsense

Go through the games with the Nalimov and Syzygy tables, as I did. They're more reliable than your big red telephone.

@10665

"Billions of potentially crucial branches rejected on the grounds of a zero depth evaluation."
++ The ICCF (grand)masters use far more than zero depth.
Those draws are draws indeed.
It is ridiculous to question that.
You cannot ask them to play on until a 50-moves draw.