Chess will never be solved, here's why

I tried to quote and post a reply to #1087 and got a red banner warning instead.

The way that comes most naturally to me is to label them by two numbers:

1. The distance to the squares on the edge of the board (0, 1, 2, or 3)
2. The distance to a long diagonal (0, 1, 2, or 3)

Not all combinations occur, for obvious reasons. The ones that do are:

(0, 0), (0, 1), (0, 2), (0, 3)

(1, 0), (1, 1), (1, 2)

(2, 0), (2, 1)

(3, 0)

You have previously mentioned another nice choice - the lengths of the two diagonals on which a square lives:

(1, 8), (2, 7) (3, 6), (4, 5)

(3, 8), (4, 7), (5, 6)

(5, 8) (6, 7)

(7, 8)

[Arranged to match the above]

Looks like a dumb bot allows the post but bans quoting it!

@Elroch - there's also simply giving the lengths of each square types' two diagonals.
For the four central - its 8/7.  For corner squares its 8/1.
For bishop fianchetto squares its 8/3. For knight to '3rd rank' its 8/5
Note the progression:  2 gets added to the cross-diagonal each time as the squares advance to the center.

For the eight edge squares next to corner - its always 7/2.
For the 8 edge squares next to royal squares and middle squares on the edge - its always 6/3.
For the eight royal squares plus 'wingmates' its always 5/4.  
Note the pattern:  the edge squares' diagonals always add up to 9.  

That leaves three types.  
The eight catseyes squares - (like ship's anchor ports)
are always 7/4.  Queens often like to go to those squares so that other pieces don't hassle them as easily.  like c2 and b3.  
Squares like d2 or g4 ...  I haven't got a name for those ...
but there's 8 of them and their diagonals are always 6/5.  11 total again.
like with the four  fianchetto squares.

Finally there's the squares like d3 and c5. 
Their diagonals are always 7/6.  Total 13 like the four 8/5 squares.

So now sense can be made out of the progressions.
Edge squares always have 9 total on their diagonals.  Four types.
2nd rank or file always have 11 total on diagonals.  Three types.
3rd rank or file always have 13 total on diagonals.  Two types.
Center squares always have 15 total.  Only one type.  

8/1, 7/2, 6/3, 5/4
       8/3, 7/4, 6/5
              8/5, 7/6
                     8/7

And now I've posted them so that they correspond to part of the top left quadrant of the board.   From a8 corner to d5 center.  And d8 at the right angle.
each of the ten square types has a unique diagonals situation.  

corrected my error - its 5/4 at top right of that first row.
Royal squares (King and Queen thrones) and their wingmates on the wings - a4 a5 and h4 h5

#1086
"How are you going to prove that e5 for black and Nf3 for white are 'optimal' ?"
++ It is not necessary to prove that 1...e5 is optimal for black: it leads to a draw, so only white alternatives need inspection.
To prove that 2 Nf3 is optimal, the 3 alternatives 2 Nc3, 2 d4, and 2 Bc4 merit inspection.
"Or 1) e4 either."
++ 1 e4 is the most logical move, but the 3 alternatives 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3 merit inspection.

The whole effort of proof takes 5 years on 3 cloud engines.
a 1st engine for 1 e4,
a 2nd engine for 1 d4,
a 3rd engine for other white first moves that do not transpose.

@tygxc
How are you going to prove that e4 is optimal ?
What you are doing is circular.

You are premising the proof at the beginning - and then continuing with No Proof !
But its okay.
At least you're making an effort to be Civil - and also discussing the actual subject.

To improve and widen the topic -
I believe the psychology of perception - is heavily involved.  
When there's multiple choice of interpretations - with several options -
people often immediately grasp just one - and then cling to it.
But the whole point about multiple options is that you have 'choices'.
Choices - plural.  
And 'choices' are a big deal in chess too ...

#1095
"How are you going to prove that e4 is optimal ?"
First look into 1 e4. If this is a draw, then look into 1 d4, if this is a draw too, then look into 1 c4, if this is a draw too then look into 1 Nf3.

Here is a candidate ideal game for 1 d4:

@Elroch -
you actually posted the display before I did it seems.
I rearranged my array of ten so that it corresponds in physical position with actual squares.  A little work with the space bar.
GM's can play blindfold.  I saw a tremendous demonstration of a blindfold simul by Carlsen - with clocks.
Do they at some point consider these things like 'dual diagonal identity' of squares?  Or is it all subconscious and intuitive ?
The conscious mind can guide the subconscious.  Sometimes.   

When I worked out these arrays about 30 years ago - I was looking into knight moves.
Found out there were 21 discreet types.  Based on the 10 square types.
10 'interior' knight move types.
10 'one edge' knight move types.
1 only - 'edge to edge' knight move types.
It was very neat.  Each knight move type has 16 rotations/reflections/color of knight reversals.  They're 2way moves.

Maybe - the 'corpse' was trying to 'solve' chess - and he became unfrozen and fell down dead.
'Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer' ....

Supposedly a Harvard mathematician just recently solved a 150 year old chess problem. n queens puzzle, whatever that is. So maybe there is hope for the whole game being (at least mostly) solved. 

The eight queens puzzle ( N- Queen) is the problem of placing eight chess queens on an 8×8 chessboard so that no two queens threaten each other; thus, a solution requires that no two queens share the same row, column, or diagonal.

No mathematical proof is needed for this quite simple chess problem. It is an excellent exercise for beginning players. It has been solved for centuries. The 1st 7 Queens prove easy enough. The 8th Queen takes some doing, recognition of the correct pattern. (The Knight move)

If a handful of miscreants and ne'er do wells with chips on their shoulders attach something negative to someone...does it really matter?

(The answer is no)

If your response to many posters disagreeing with you is to pull one loony tunes poster that everyone *also* disagrees with out of your top hat...well, it just speaks to your skewed PoV.  If you don't realize on some level that your unilateral claims of superior intellect and understanding are killing any shred of credibility you have left, then that speaks to your being wound up completely in denial and your own false narratives about your life.  You disparaged someone's lack of some tip-top credential when you have far less credentials yourself to comment on...well, much of anything honestly, if we're to go by your body of posts all these years.

I don't generally judge based on credentials if/when actual expertise is being demonstrated, but if I were to, I would certainly not do so by attacking someone who has more credentials than I do.  I've never seen you drill down on a single topic in any arena (other than perhaps biking) and display anything more than grandstanding and baseless opinions.  

I'm going to pass on replying to the other stuff, because (A) it's been an amazing 3 days leading up to Valentine's Day ...and (B) because you have already done all the heavy lifting of losing your own arguments with your lunatic fringe behavior.

I actually bury the hatchet every time a poster makes a reasonable post or two or three...but if that cannot be maintained, then it matters little.

Let's see how long you can go without trying to elevate your own intellect and/or denigrate others'.

What's become very noticeable about 'hard guy' is his mood shifts and the transience of his positions.
He oscillates between total insidiously ridiculous positions -
and at the other ends - occasional smug 'awarenesses' like 'only teasing' and 'was childish' or 'your hatchets'.   There's no introspection.
And all the positions in between.  
Lately he is trying for 'truce' as if he doesn't bring it on himself.
But his pursuits can be kept peripheral to the forum topic under the heading of - 'psychology of perception' as that pertains to that topic. 

The rest of the posters seem to have some willingness to address the actual forum subject as priority in conversation here.
The actual nature of the task of 'solving' chess rather than 'his superior intellect'.  

     "Balance of power"? Is this some sort of competition? Is it to see who can come up with the most insults for those with different opinions? To see who can build up their own "credentials" to an unassailable height? To find out who is the snarkiest and most unpleasant?

     How about a forum discussing the "solvability" of chess and possibilities of achieving that?

the 'snarkiest' - Lol !   
And the actual discussion is continuing - mostly 'around' the other thing.

Is 'hard guy' finally beginning to dawn that 'you're all fools' isn't working out for him? Probably only temporarily. Experience suggests that he'll work his way back around to that and continue to repeat his cycles and oscillations.  The diversion into 'white flag' is probably only a tactic.

It's really a generalisation of a chess problem. It relates to an asymptotic approximation to the  function f(n) defined as the number of ways to place n queens on an n x n  board.  (If you are interested, the answer is (0.143n)^n.  See wiki.