English draughts was the limit that Zermelo's could be stretched to and even that was admitted to be a "weak solution". But draughts is linear in a way that chess isn't.
Mathematical induction is a very basic, deductively valid mapping. It can't be used to link to chess. That's bogus but it isn't anything to be surprised by. Victorian theoreticians were often untrustworthy and I'm just surprised you were taken in by it.
A tip to save you some effort @Optimissed. Simply copy the sentence, "I haven't the faintest idea what any of this is about", then, whenever you feel inclined to post, just paste it into the text area. It will convey exactly the same message without all that typing.
If you want to add some insults just type them after.
It is amusing that @Optimissed is unaware that mathematical theorems (such as the general form of Zermelo's theorem) apply to a class of objects with given properties and that the size of an example is irrelevant to the truth (unless it is explicitly part of the conditions of the theorem).
Would you mind controlling your alts please? 
You are ridiculously pretentious. Amusing? Sad how you hide behind your trolls. How can anyone possibly have respect for you when you allow that kind of thing to take place, in the belief that it protects you from me?
I berlieve that you are not very intelligent. You are not inteklligent enough to be able to work out why Zermello's doesn't apply in the way you want it to. You are using Zermello's like a magic axiom that allows you to persuade people that you are right and yet since chess isn't solveable and Zermello's says it IS, according to you, something has to give. I suggest that you should give way to reality.
You are talking to me, tygxc and basically to a bunch of people without any brains who are not capable of reaching conclusions unless you tell them what to think. Sorry but that's the truth. A lot of pople ar going to agree with me and disagree with you. I mean, a lot of mathematicians who are also realists and who don't expect pure maths to get them off the hook.
FYI optimissed you should realize that the zermelo stuff applies independently of game complexity.
you should also realize that your definition of a 'mathematical representation' is improper, and that's causing your misunderstanding.
you are interpreting 'mathematical representation' as a human-written algorithm to guarantee and verify a solution of the game.
but a game as a mathematical object/representation is just the ruleset of the game expressed in logical language. human abilities and technology have no bearing here.
That isn't possible. It's like you don't understand the difference between second order differential equations and your mummy adding up the shopping list. Come to think, I don't expect you do understand the difference. You're clueless. That post is pretentious gobbledegook and you could not win an argument with me in a months of Sundays.