Chess will never be solved, here's why

Now we can make progress

He's not even right though usually he's wrong

Try again. How exactly do you think that his opponents "get him muted"? It's his own behavior.

Calling anything Optimissed has ever posted an axiom is being far too generous. Rather, he is often very "anti-axiomatic", preferring his own opinion (while eschewing any research) over established consensus or truths. Don't be a sucker and believe him just because he unilaterally claims he is smart/correct. Read his posts over time and realize that there's nothing really in them, just talking in circles and putting people down to raise himself up.

You like Lola...stick with her, she is somewhat smarter, and not silly enough to wade neck-deep into things she has no expertise in. She's a drive-by shooter.

I wonder if it is permanent this time he's slowly racking up too many mutes

Idk bro optimissed gets a lot of basic definitions wrong, and I certainly dont even bother reporting his messages.

Slaughterhouse meet invincible steak

C'mon yourself, Tuna. You're just potstirring. You love conflict and you prop up whichever side promises to provide more drama. You've been doing it for years and years...in fact, I believe it was you who once called me the Bruce Lee of the forums...

Not a new tactic.

u know i think luke is trolling and we all fell for it LOL

...sooo true Lukey. and he's notta troll.

Actually - optimissed loses almost every time.
And he gets himself muted by his intense trolling.
Yes there will be those who want to blame others for O's trolling.
On this latest mute he'll probably again try to claim it was the robo-censor.
His previous mute a few days ago - lasted six days.
Robo mutes are 24 hours. (unless that's changed. Unlikely)
Possibility - he's deliberately got himself robo-muted this time around so he can claim he committed 'no real offenses? Very possible.
To him - his tactics and trolling are everything.
He's 'life-invested'.
Regarding his projections and projecting of his projecting ...
what's the key? Dishonesty.
O lied again and claimed he was the only one discussing the forum subject.
Others didn't. Didn't lie. (one exception)
Falsehood. A key ingredient of projection.

opti's a pleasant wait a sec. its not his fault he cant be taken. so what if hes a chalkboard handful. hes 250 watts a in ur face...and i luvem for it !

somebody fire me !

It is impressive how often Opt gets muted. He must be getting very familiar to the chess.com staff.

Opti isn't even one watt.
No power.
While its often a mistake to want somebody muted -
that doesn't mean its not good when it happens.
---------------------------
The forum subject.
Its tygxc - not O - its tygxc who provides the 'foils of illogic' of this discussion.
And O is intensely jealous of that. Foolishly.
tygxc does his thing - with little or no personalization from him.
Yes tygxc's illogic is crass. Gross. Sustained.
And dissected by others. Analyzed. Year in year out.
But tygxc holds himself up. While O fails to do so. Year in year out.
The contrast is Stark.

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.