Chess will never be solved, here's why

I don't have that great knowledge of solid state physics, but that sounds such a cool thing - to discover a new state of matter. All the examples I have heard of over the years have been fascinating.

      False. The light in question originates from some point in space (call it point A) and heads toward earth at the speed of light. Earth starts at some other point in space (point B) and moves away from point A at 1/2 the speed of light. As the light from point A is traveling twice as fast as the Earth the light will catch up to us and we will see it at point C (although Zeno might dispute this point).

And again - regarding the thread topic ...

Apparently  - nobody here is involved in any project to solve chess -
whether propounding 'peer reviews' or not.
So a lot of the discussion is about Perception of such projects.
There's something called 'Gestalt' psychology.  
Got started in Germany about 100 years ago.
Perhaps it has some applications here.  

I would agree with @mpaetz there.   'False' is correct.  
But there's a note ...   could a large object like earth move at half the speed of light ...  or rather - have massive objects ever been observed moving at that kind of speed?
Supposedly 'plasma blobs' and cosmic rays have been observed travelling at over 90% of c.
Issue:  very little data available on planet sized objects outside the solar system.  Earthlings have trouble observing even inside our own galaxy - let alone detecting other 'big bangs' outside our own big bang.
Regarding 'speed of travel' perhaps somebody will want to make it a 'velocity or a vector or a derivative or 'riding the lightbeam' ....
Lol !   Mwahahahahahhahahahhahah  !!

I remember a strong chess player - no not a titled player - I knew.
He had multiple university degrees - claimed he could identify the 'gestalt' of various persons from their chess play.  

The motion of objects isn't what would cause light to not reach them.
Much more likely - its known that black holes can and do bend light -
plus there's matter like interstellar hydrogen to block light ...
plus how much can light divide over distance and still keep going and then still be discernible as light?
So - black holes trapping light and creating gravity wells plus matter blocking light - all within the source volume -
plus enormous distances between that volume and the candidate target volume - plus more obstacles of a similiar nature within the target volume too.
A lot of reasons why very distant objects might never be seen.  

Note also - did somebody just try to claim 'faster than light' travel ??

Not I.

"the distance between the two objects will be increasing at faster than the speed of light."
Earlier - I argued something related to that for the distance between light fronts at opposite ends of a diameter of an expanding illuminated volume ...
only related though.   That the diameter increases at a rate of 2c.  Not c.
Nobody could refute it.  Although some tried - with semantics and diversions.

But the quoted claim in italics (not a claim by me) looks different from that.
It seems to be arguing for 'space being created' at a diametric rate of greater than c.
1) has it ever been proven that 'space can be created' ?   Seems doubtful.
Although such claims have been propounded and postulated endlessly and intensely for many decades.  Including by many credible scientists.  Such claims deserve more attention than claims of a flat earth or no moon ... 
2) whether actual or hypothetical - has there been some kind of logic put forward that such creation of space would occur at 'greater than c' ?
3) that such 'creation' would shove objects apart on either side of it?
4) that it could 'shove them apart' at greater than c ?
Looks like many contradictions there.  Not just of causality -
but of thermodynamics - creation of kinetic energy from nothing - 
maybe some others too.  
Could be fun though.
Truth is stranger than fiction - but can it ever be as Dramatic ?

And - the conversation - and the post from mpaetz -
referred to objects travelling - not 'space being created'.
So 'false' stands.   
Here it is again:

I would agree with @mpaetz there.   'False' is correct.  
But there's a note ...   could a large object like earth move at half the speed of light ...  or rather - have massive objects ever been observed moving at that kind of speed?
Supposedly 'plasma blobs' and cosmic rays have been observed travelling at over 90% of c.
Issue:  very little data available on planet sized objects outside the solar system.  Earthlings have trouble observing even inside our own galaxy - let alone detecting other 'big bangs' outside our own big bang.
Regarding 'speed of travel' perhaps somebody will want to make it a 'velocity or a vector or a derivative or 'riding the lightbeam' ....
Lol !   Mwahahahahahhahahahhahah  !!

And - again.  The 'psychology of perception' is involved.  Which could include gestalt.  No matter how hard whoever tries to get that dismissed.
Repeat:  Nobody here is involved in a formal project to solve chess.
And chess isn't solved either.  So there's no proof that it could be.
Such proof perhaps never to exist until and unless that actually happens.
That leaves us with the perceptions of such projects.
And how such perceptions work.  Of math and science.
I think Elroch made yet another concession several years ago - although he didn't put it as such ...
that modern science doesn't try to argue that the entire big bang could have started as everything compressed into a single point in space.
Although some might try to push for that.

Three approaches to science:

1)  Logical approach.  Results of observations and reports.  Inferences.  Deductions.
2)  Direct factual evidence.  As in Very direct.  Experiments and demonstrations or events conclusively and finally proving whatever beyond controversy.
With little or no inferences nor deductions nor logic needed.
3)  The 'doctrine' approach.  Indoctrination of whoever by whoever.  Something is accepted because somebody with credentials or authority asserts or claims or insists that something is true.  This is the worst approach but its probably the most popular. 

The limit of c is for objects moving in the space, not for the space itself. The main reason why we think that the space is expanding is the redshift of distant objects, and the farther the objects, the greater the redshift, so possibly faster the expansion. If the space expands faster than c, then the light produced in that zone could not reach us. But really we don't know much about the universe. It seems that what we know is 5% of the total, the rest is dark matter and dark energy, of which we know little to nothing.

I get that response too.  A personalization tactic.
I'm not 'indoctrinated'.  
Has Einstein been proven right ?  
Sure.  Over and over again.  Something called nuclear power.
There were observations made - concerning whether the ellipse of earth's orbit - shifts around relative to the stars or not.  In one case it would be basically Newton.  In the other - Einstein.
The evidence showed that Einstein improved on Newton.
Einstein did all kinds of things.
But that doesn't mean 'space can be created'  (maybe one of a very long list of things that will never be proven)  
nor that the universe is finite -
nor that everything in the big bang could have been compressed into a single point in space that has no spatial dimensions -
nor that time started with the big bang ...
Different approaches to science ...
one is to make a kind of fashionable 'mini-religion' out of relativity and the big bang.
How about 'something from nothing' and 'nothing from something' ?
Yes - that's pushed too.
In 'quantum mechanics'.  Objects 'winking out of and back into existence'.
Is it plausible ?
Regarding 'explanation' one of them appears to be that when a quantum particle crosses a demarcation in space or time it might temporarily cease to exist.
It has some plausibility.   Plus GPS systems supposedly confirm quantum theory.
But that doesn't mean you're getting something from nothing.
And it doesn't follow causality is violated either.
Those are more like the latest gourmet designer/doctrine approaches.  

But a common object, like a wavefront, which under normal conditions and with respect to another object (e.g. another wavefront) moves, like you say, faster than c, would violate the special relativity.

Quantum fluctuations can temporary create mass, because of the mass-energy equivalence.

@ shady - I edited my post right after posting it - then your two posts suddenly appeared after my edit.
So I'll delete and repost my post.  Now.

Which I think I already referred to - in different words - about quantum scenarios.  The supposedly 'creative' ...  
Regarding 'violations of special relativity' - I don't think that's the case with opposed increase in the diameter of radially expanding illuminated spheres adding up to 2c instead of c.
Many people who want to see the semantics of how they interpret relativity as 'inexorable' - simply refuse to accomodate the reality of c adding to c in that instance.   
Probably any physicist worth his salt might instantly confirm
"Yes - Of Course the two opposite wavefronts diverge at 2c !!  Of Course !
And for All observers !   And insisting that their speed or rate of travel or 'magnitude' of same are vectors or velocities is only going to further  confirm and reinforce that even more.   As for somebody or something 'riding the lightbeams' - that's a special and different hypothetical situation where 'transformations' in the rate of passage of time actually would apply at that very special and theoretical locale - which should not be confused with 'all observers external to the event' '"
But then he might add:
"Somebody's trying to say that the very real '2c' there somehow 'violates relativity' ??  Lol !  That might be true for whoever has taken a kind of semantically-defined 'doctrine' approach to relativity ... and then therefore reacts to the reality of c + c there as a kind of 'blasphemy'.  Physics is physics - not religion.  The same people might try to insist that the Big Bang is 'the universe' too.  Or that the universe is 'finite'.  How are they going to prove either?  Is there to be Major Quibbling about 'burden of proofs' there? Suggestion:  Have a good day." 

@shady-character - I'll take your 'complaint' as an acknowledgement that you cannot refute the realities of 2c regarding diametrically opposed wavefronts.
Its like 'darn that playerafar - person rocking 'our' boat.  Flame him !   Flame him Now !!'
    Hahahahhahahahhaahh

@tygxc  You have valiantly (but not effectively) defended your position that chess could be 'weakly solved' in theory - in five years or less.  
But when you're reminded (by more than one person) about the huge increase in difficulty upon adding pieces to the endgame tablebases you've been evading the issue - or - simply acknowledged that a perfect solve 'is not feasible'.   
Not only is chess not solved - with no proof it could be solved this century - there is nobody in the forum actually taking such position of 'solvable'.
And also no person in the forum involved in such a project.
There's a situation that happens - where people argue about things that they're actually in agreement about ! 
Ironically - such arguments can be Vehement !  Intensely so !  

From @shady-character just a very few minutes ago:
"There is no denying that the light beams at any point are twice as far apart as a diameter than a radii measured with a ruler."
Beginning to catch on.  Progress.  Points - not 'the' point or 'your' point ...
but then ...
'shady' goes and violates his own insistencies ...  like with 'a radii' ...
already an internal contradiction (although innoccuous grammar error)
and then runs off - out of the "illumination" of this forum !  Into the shade.
Shady.  'Shady' business. 

Folks - in order to discuss the difficulties of 'solving' two points could be enhanced.  Commented about.
1) Defining 'solving'.  What it does or should or could or might mean.
2) The math of adding even just one piece to a 7 piece endgame 'tablebase' (the current worldwide maximum) - wherein such adding so greatly increases the number of possible positions to be solved at that level.

'Solving' could mean:   'All 20 possible first moves by White all so thoroughly evaluated that it is known as to which ones if any force a win or can force a draw if pursued by white or allow black to win by force.'
Possible objection:  'No.  If even one of the first moves by white is shown to force a win - then the game is solved and the other 19 moves need not be evaluated.'
But such objection is invalid because of the 'if'.  There is no such 'solved first move to force a win' therefore the possibility has to be maintained that there is no such move by white and also the possibility that black could have a forced win against some of those 20 also needs to be maintained.   
Point:  Unless such forced win by white is found 'early' among the '20'  then all 20 white first moves must be 'solved' to have true solving.
Not 'strong' solving.   True solving.

Now - regarding 'adding a piece' to a 7 piece tablebase - the math:
Five different pieces could be singly added to any of the huge number of positions in such 7-piece databases ....
but of two different colours.
So that's any one of ten different pieces.
Added to up to 57 different squares ...
Objection !  "No ! - some of those additions would result in immediately illegal positions!"
Counter:  But such illegality would still have to be computer-established before discarding such illegals.  Therefore - all 57 empty squares apply to the difficulty of the task.

Deduction:  Adding a piece to the 7 piece base - causes a multiplication of x 570 to the number of positions to be 'solved'.
Does x 570 seem like a small multiplier next to the astronomical numbers of possible chess positions ?
For the realilties of the project - its a Gigantic multiplier.
If it took a year to get from 6 to 7 pieces -
that could mean its going to take At Least 570 years to get from 7 to 8 pieces.
And you're billions of millenia there - from 32 pieces.
Objection:  'But but but - many of those new positions might be easier to solve than the 7-piece !'
Counter:  They'd be Harder.  More pieces means more actual move-options and more depth before solution.  A huge number more.  A kind of 'permuting'.  Further increasing the difficulty.

Adding just one piece - increases the difficulty by a factor of at least 570.
'Burden of proof' - depends on who is asked and if that's interpreted as a factor in the first place.
This isn't a courtroom.  No judge here to assign such burdens.

#1332

1) GM Sveshnikov: "Give me five years, good assistants and modern computers, and I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess. ">>

"How can that possibly be interpreted as Sveshnikov saying he can solve chess in 5 years?"
++How can you interprete that otherwise than 'close chess' = weakly solve chess?
How can you interprete 'from the opening towards tablebases' otherwise than opposed to from the 7-men tablebase towards a 32-men tablebase to strongly solve chess?
"What's his expertise?" ++ He was a grandmaster, was a top theoretician and top analyst
"Why should he be believed?" ++ Analyse chess was his job and he was outstanding at it

"The necessary assessment algorithms don't even exist"
++ They do: Stockfish exists and can play the same role that Chinook played for solving checkers

#1336
""An upper bound for the number of chess diagrams without promotion""

I answered that before. Without promotion means without excess promotion i.e. without promotion to a piece not already captured or without promotion to a piece needed to borrow from another box of 32 chess men.
I agree some positions with 4 queens are sensible, can arrive from a reasonable game with reasonable moves and thus can arrive from an ideal game with optimal moves.
However, for each such position not accounted for there are several positions that cannot arrive from a reasonable game with reasonable moves and thus not from an ideal game with optimal moves. I presented 4 examples of such positions.
So the count from the Gourion paper has to be corrected in + for positions with 4 queens and in - for insensible positions, in - for left/right symmetry and in - for 8-fold symmetry of pawnless positions.
So the count of the Gourion paper is correct and even too high.

69

“Have humans walked on Mars? No
Can humans walk on Mars? Yes
Will humans walk on Mars? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying billions of $ to build and launch a spacecraft.”

Let's let Elon Musk manage that...

But I think chess is "solved".

#1339
"Non-peer-reviewed "combinations" of peer reviewed papers does not make a peer-reviewed paper and thus are not considered proven by science. It's even worse if one combines peer reviewed papers with non-peer-reviewed statements."

I cannot present a peer reviewed publication that states chess can be solved in 5 years, but neither are there any peer reviewed publications that say it takes 5000 years.
This is a discussion forum. If we can only post statements published in peer-reviewed publications, then the forum would be empty.

So far I am the only one who has presented facts and figures supporting my opinion that Sveshnikov was right.
Others just state their opinion.
Or come with nonsense like insisting on 1 d4 a5?
Many mistake 'I do not want chess to be solved' for 'chess will not be solved'