Chess will never be solved, here's why

Has been 'familiar' to them for a long time.
But now they're apparently getting extra-acquainted.
Maybe he'll try his tactic: 'You need me'.

Chess will never be solved.
But people try to 'solve it' every day. With some success.
'Your flag is down'.
Opponent: 'But you're already Checkmated first. There. Solved.'

But I don't specify the rules and if I did no one would take any notice. If I did, I'd probably start with a mathematical object and add a description of how the undefined objects, relations etc. were to be interpreted.

What you say is debatable. It can run into practical difficulties.

1. Rules are usually specified in a natural language, which will have ambiguities, possibly with the addition of tables and diagrams, the latter possibly without any description of how they relate to the text. The result is then often not a mathematical object, but (not necessarily compatible) mathematical objects.

2. The mathematical object derived from the rules may not represent a playable or solvable game.

3. The rules may include circular rules that can't be validly modelled mathematically.

In the case of FIDE chesses and ICCF or TCEC chesses, which are based on the FIDE laws, all of the above apply, but further, when such games are played they are not played in accordance with the FIDE laws anyway, so, probably, none of those chesses are what OP had in mind. Different (so far in the thread unspecified) mathematical models for each of the games mentioned, based not on rules, but on accepted conventions of how the games are actually played are necessary. (Necessary because the question obviously relates to mathematical solutions.)

From the current FIDE handbook (highlights in yellow are mine).

Examples of 1.

a. The word "move" as used for example in

1.2 The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move.

Chess players would normally take this to mean a move of a piece as specified in

Article 3: The moves of the pieces

and would not include resignation, draw claims, draw offers or acceptance of draw offers as "moves".

Non chess players might take the term to mean any action permitted in the rules or any such action that changes the game state, and so include those (and possibly also the adjustment of one or more pieces on their squares, after first expressing intention).

One difference would be that after offering a draw or adjusting pieces, it's ambiguous whether he is then required or allowed to also make also a move of a piece by art 1.2.

b. The term "part of a legal move" as used in

4.7 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. ... 

The term "part" (of a move) is used twice in Art. 3

3.1.1 If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move. 

3.7.5.1 When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’. 

However, in both cases the quotes that normally appear in an implicit definition are omitted, so it is at least permissible to take these as normal English terms. 

Art.4 doesn't prohibit releasing a piece on a square that doesn't represent a legal move. I believe the intention is to avoid any provision for illegal moves under basic rules by making them impossible. The idea being, for example, if you start the game by picking up your e2 pawn and releasing it on g6 nothing is awry, but you haven't yet 'made' your move.

In standard English the e2 pawn may have been released on g6 as part of the legal move e4. In which case art. 4.7 prohibits you from finishing the move and presumably the game would terminate without a result.

c. The word "gender" in

11.3.3 The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags, other items or body to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player, and shall be of the same gender as the player. ...

This may have been unambiguous when the article was first included, but could currently cause all kinds of confusion.

Examples of 2.

a. In most competitive two player games that are mathematically modelled, the objective of each player is clearly defined. At most one player can achieve the objective and the result is then called a win for that player and a loss for his opponent or a draw if neither achieves a win.

FIDE clearly states the objective

1.4 The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.

but they also state

5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

they place no constraint on when a player may declare he resigns, so either or both players can immediately prevent his opponent from achieving his objective by doing so at the start of the game.

Except under FIDE basic rules White would also have the option of failing to make the required number of moves before his time elapses. Black could also then not achieve his objective.

b. FIDE do not indicate a full set of priorities for the outcome of games that terminate in simultaneous events. For example if both players resign simultaneously with a piece being released on a square that results in a dead position then in one and the same game both players win (without either achieving his objective) and the game is drawn, which possibly means they also both draw.

c. With the interpretation mentioned in b under Examples of 1 above a game could have no possible continuation but also no result.

Examples of 3.

a. The dead position rule.

1.5 If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate the opponent’s king, the game is drawn (see Article 5.2.2).

5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

The clause, "... neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king ...", I take to mean in any continuation under the game rules in force.

The problem is that arts. 1.5 or 5.2.2 are included in the game rules in force.

The result is that whether or not a position is dead is logically independent of the rules.

If you're drawn against MC you need only declare the position dead. If the arbiter asserts that a player can mate with some particular sequence of moves you counter that he cannot because the position is dead and by arts. 1.5 or 5.2.2 that ends the game.

All the rule tells you is that if the position is dead then it's dead, but if it's not dead then it's not dead (which you probably already suspected).

b. timeout (not basic rules)

6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by thatplayer[sic]. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Similarly, the clause, "... the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king ...", I take to mean in any continuation under the game rules in force. 

But again art. 6.9 is included in the game rules in force. And again the player who times out can try insisting on the draw whatever the position on the grounds that the opponent cannot checkmate because no continuation is possible since 6.9 has already terminated the game.

All of which validates the post to which you were replying, I think.

It may be that your response is correct in some sense (though not sure how you'd get around 3).

It is necessary to talk in terms of mathematical models of the rules (different models for the different versions of chess mentioned) to address the question, but it wouldn't be useful to construct these from published rules, they would rather be from conventional ideas about what the rules are supposed to say, with variable amounts of detail retained from the rules.

So for example all that might be retained from the FIDE competition rules could be the 3R/5R and 50M/75M rules, eliminating the considerations in 1c and 3b and some of the possible simultaneous events with inconsistent results as well as any difficulties concerning clocks and arbiters etc. The stated objective of checkmate could just be excised and defaulted to "win" and either some scheme of priorities for the result of simultaneous events or a model with no simultaneous events allowed (as implemented in GUI's), turning the chesses into zero sum games. Art. 1.2 and article 4 could be replaced by a requirement that the players alternate moving one of their own pieces so long as the game is in progress (which would conflict with White's right to move either colour of piece at the start of the game under FIDE rules, but then that right conflicts with how almost everyone thinks the game should be played). The dead position rule could be fixed by something like 

1.5 If the position is such that neither player could possibly checkmate the opponent’s king if the game were being played under arts. 1.1 to 1.4.2, 2.1 to 5.2.1 and art. 5.2.3 onwards, the game is drawn (see Article 5.2.2).

5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player could checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves, if the game were being played under arts. 1.1 to 1.4.2, 2.1 to 5.2.1 and art. 5.2.3 onwards. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

Rather than FIDE rules think of the rules of a game on chess.com (the rules that are nothing to do with the server are not part of the mathematical description and the clock would generally also be ignored in mathematical study).

That subset of the code of the server is essentially a set of mathematical rules of the game. It includes automated catching of triple repetitions and examples of the 50 move rule.

chess may be solvable but the 50-move hasta be abolished for so. humble-o.

hi

Yes, that's an example of the sort of compromise I was talking about, but it doesn't adequately represent all of the versions of chess I mentioned and I don't think the code is publicly available.

MAR you conflate player conduct + officiating rules with the rules of the game.

Checkers has all the same "issues" that you claim chess has, yet I don't see you disputing the claim that checkers has been solved.

@MEGACHE3SE

I don't think I'm conflating the two. I suggested jettisoning all but the 3R/5R and 50M/70M in producing a mathematical model of FIDE competition rules chess, but the rules of the game would generally be taken as the FIDE handbook and that does include rules concerning clocks and arbiters and conduct etc.

What would you say are the rules of the game (and do you think "game" is correctly used in the singular)? Where would you see authoritative descriptions?

And I have questioned whether checkers has been solved. I'm far from convinced, but that's a topic for a different thread. (Actually I don't remember noticing any of the isssues I mentioned the last time I looked at the rules for checkers. Can you give examples?)

you literally are. nothing that you brought up is about the state of the board. An easy demonstration of that is the fact that none of what you claimed has any effect on chess.com games.

chess as an abstraction is the rules of the board, piece positions, and the defined outcome of each move on the board. stuff like the 50-move rule are variations.

easy example for checkers is your claim of the situation of both players resigning simultaneously. btw - simultaneously according to who? you assume that the events are evaluated to be at the same time.

Yes you're correct. The simultaneous event ambiguities are not resolved there either.

Without that resolution you can't actually solve the game.

Simultaneously would usually be taken to mean nobody involved in the game could distinguish any separation between the events occurring.

Going by FIDE rules, the game is already solved: bribe the officials to give you the win every game.

In tournament checkers I would say that scenario would or should lead to neither player getting a point nor a half point for the game.
It would be like they both didn't show up.
And the same for rating purposes. The game doesn't count.
Same with chess.
Sandbagger: 'Shucks. Lost the chance to lose rating points.'
Compare 'draw by agreement' with handshake and signed game forms to
'mutual resign by agreement'
Spontaneous mutual resignation?
TD: Which of you resigned first?
'We don't know'.

To be fair, as I understand it, the auto-mutes may automatically escalate the mute timeframe if someone does not have a long enough "cooldown" period since their last mute to reset the counter. So it's hard to tell.

The role of the arbiter in the basic rules game is limited to deciding whether an assistant proposed for a player who is unable to move the pieces is acceptable to him. He has no power to award a win.

Even if he did, youl'd still have either failed to achieve the object of the game or wasted your money.

He's like a Zener diode that likes to go into thermal runaway...flashy, but the circuit is broken as a result.

It has only been a week since he was muted last probably less so it is probably longer this time

Also - if a person is a repeat offender maybe the auto-censor assigns a longer mute.
But those auto censors usually apply to PM's.
Plus at the time of his six day mute several days - O 'just happened' to be talking about reporting people.
He seems to think everyone except him was born yesterday.
Its no wonder that everyone does better than him.
Plus after - he tried to claim he committed no offenses at all.
The reverse is true.