Chess will never be solved, here's why

Uh oh! Hostility.

yo be quiet nerd

You left out the diamond.

Skimming through all this I will say that I should have said castling rights and/or en passant (and/or any other exclusions made for expediency). The important part is that while tablebases at the 6/7/8 levels can be called incomplete without including everything, using the terminology weak or strong just causes confusion, and that technically tablebases will always be incomplete (since they do not include draws, if nothing else).

Adding the missing pieces at the 7 or 8 man tablebase level is relatively minor...and as Elroch mentioned it's only going to be a tiny fraction of positions added. That would still require significant effort later down the road...if we're going to calculate 10^40+ positions, then adding various moves would require calculating say another 10^35. Trivial enough at each stage, but significant in total.

I agree with almost all of that except this part:
"Adding the missing pieces at the 7 or 8 man tablebase level is relatively minor"
The idea that 'adding a piece' gets easier wouldn't seem to follow.
Even though you'd get more 'repeats'.
This was discussed some time ago.
For reference - look at how tough it was adding just one piece to just six pieces.
How long it took.
-------------------------
Every time you add another piece - as the number of pieces on board increases - then that piece relates to more other pieces.
Another factor that I don't think has been discussed much - 
how the number of moves immediately available increases each time you add a piece.
Many might say 'well no not if you're adding a pawn because that pawn doesn't add many moves' ...
missing the point that that's only for one move deep.
You add anything at all - increases the number of moves available -
but then that grows with a depth of 2 ply three ply and so on 'ahead'.
Totally neglected factor so far.
---------------------------------------
Trying some relevant math.
Twenty to the 10th power and twenty-five to the tenth power.
For the first I got an answer of about ten trillion.
For the second I got about 95 trillion.
Idea: correspondence with a position that averaged about twenty moves available over ten ply versus correspondence with a position that averaged twenty-five moves available over ten ply.
Ten ply is only five moves deep.
The computers are computing far deeper than that.
-----------------------
Then I tried the same two numbers on an exponent of 30.
For the first I got a number of about 1000 x (a trillion cubed)
For the second I got a number about 100,000 times greater.

I meant the missing "pieces" of the tablebase, i.e. castling positions et al. A good example of why using weak and strong here is not advisable. I should not have said "pieces" without clarifying.

Do we agree with the "chess played perfectly is always a draw" saying? I feel like there's too little moves and sequences to always ensure a draw, like it's mostly 0.03 -0.05 etc(I don't mean in stockfish eval). Like it's too rough and there's too little moves to make in betweens

it's by far the most likely outcome. the only people who claim it as absolute certainty here are well known on this forum as people without any sort of proof knowledge.

Almost everyone here thinks that chess is extremely likely to be a draw with perfect play The questions are: can this be proved to be so, and how might that be done

nerd ahhs

Sorry to break it to you, but we're all nerds here - including you.

Once you created an account on a chess website, and starting playing and creating posts - you became a de facto nerd.

We seem to have some agreement about 'weak and strong'
Copy that.
Pun intended. Using an emoji too. 'risking disdain'.

Playing chess "perfectly" is also a hard target to hit ... and to define.

yo what the hail

No 'perfect game of chess' by both sides has ever been established to have ever happened.
Ever.
Why not?
SImple reason. Chess is not solved.
A 'grim reaper' mowing down circular arguments.
But we don't have to be Grimm about that. Misspellling intentional.

Even if chess can't be solved it still proves as a fun challenge to figure out how to play a perfect game

Hi @DessNots
On one side?
Lets look at a candidate for 'perfect play by one side' - a very short well known 'game'. and see if that players play was 'perfect' even for one side only.
g4 e5 f3 Qh4# checkmate.
Game over!!
------------------
Did black 'play perfectly'?
The Qh4 move was perfect.
But what about the e5 move?
How do you prove that was perfect?
------------------------------
Plus black could have played e6 instead and still have had Qh4#.
How do you prove e6 was 'perfect'?
At this point in time - nobody can.
Chess just isn't solved ...
Is that a bi ....h?
Not usually. Hasn't inhibited the development of the game at all it seems.
But in discussions like this it can sure be a 'beey---h'
Well - you know.
So even in that very short neat game - you can't prove perfect play for even One side.
Its a ... beast. Whew! Avoided profanity and the Bot!

Somebody's 'on it'.
Somewhere.
They might have solved it in another galaxy far far away.
Where a deck has 64 cards instead of 52.

I haven't solved chess, but I did solve this puzzle in my daily puzzling.

https://www.chess.com/puzzles/problem/1279055