Chess will never be solved, here's why

I can agree to some extent, but blunder-cheking is at least something. We can substitute "peer reviewed" with "well accepted by the major part of the specialists", but if only one person and none else is convinced they have proven something, how can we say that it is in fact proven?

I can have a crack at answering. My son was asked to depict magnetism, in terms of fermionic spin. This would have been about 10 years ago. During his paper research, he discovered strong indications of a hitherto unknown physical state. The maths was hard and it took him six months to write down the initial equation and a lot longer to solve it. He had a reputation, at that time, as a brilliant mathamatician.

He told me that an actual proof of his findings would probably take another generation. Using the findings, it would be necessary to predict which alloys to use and to design corresponding experiements. But he told me it is also necessary to translate all the constants he used as variables and all his variables as constants and do the equation again. He also believed that doing it that way round is so difficult that no-one at the moment could do it and it would have to wait until new techniques were discovered. Then, if the two modes of calculation mutually agreed, together with experimental results confirming the predictions regarding magnestism, it would be effectively proven. Presumably there are going to be no "peers" who would be capable of assessing it, other than finding mistakes in mathematical procedure.

Anyhow, that's what he told me. He doesn't work in academia but as an engineering and computing consultant, so he propably isn't following any outcome.

@Optimissed

So he could not claim he had solved the problem. But had he solved it, and none else agreed, I bet he would not simply go on presenting his findings on internet fora, claiming endlessly he had solved it.

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).

He actually got a job before he got his physics PhD, working in the defence industry. Believe it or not, one of the first things he had to do was to strip, reassemble and fire just about all the small arms ever made, probably including Tommy, Bren and Sten guns as well as the modern ones, at a private shooting range run for the government by a retired colonel or something. Then it was designing kit for the unmounted soldier with special reference to batteries for items of kit. I probably shouldn't be writing this .... it might be against the Official secrets Act or something. Anyway, he had no time to finish his dissertation for ages and then he did, got his PhD and more or less immediately took a big pay cut to get a job with a big, American software consultancy, where he learned programming from the bottom up. He reckoned that many people who do PhDs miss out on the mid-level education that can be so useful. Now he's working for an Australian engineering consultancy, doing stuff for the UK government and auditing energy supply for countries like Oman and the UAE. He's working much more on AI this past year. It must be fascinating. Oh and online, he never refers to what he does, so far as I know.

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  !!

<<There's something called 'Gestalt' psychology.>>

Very Germanic and ordered. Not for me. My wife claims to be slightly interested in it.

Disregarding the slightly jumbled form or explanation of the question, the answer is "true". Light from distant objects which are sufficiently far away can never reach us, because there are likely to be objects which are receding faster than the speed of light. This isn't due to motion, so it's possible, without breaking relativity.

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.  

I wonder what that means. Maybe "personality".

What are the 6 principles of gestalt? 
 
There are six individual principles commonly associated with Gestalt theory: similarity, continuation, closure, proximity, figure/ground, and symmetry and order (also called prägnanz). There are also other additional, newer principles sometimes associated with gestalt, such as common fate.

AND

What are the 5 principles of gestalt? 
 
Gestalt principles are the different ways individuals group stimuli together in order to make a whole that makes sense to them. These principles are divided up into five categories: proximity, similarity, continuity, connectedness, and closure.12 Feb 2022

In other words, it seems to stimulate total confusion.

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.

If the universe is expanding, which seems to be the case, red shift indicates that the speed of recession of distant parts of the universe is proportional to the distance between the objects. So if we're one object, then the further we can go away from here, the faster whatever is there (another object) is receding. If it's far enough away, the distance between the two objects will be increasing at faster than the speed of light. This doesn't mean that anything is moving. It just means that the sum of the rate of increase of all the incremental distances between the two objects might be greater than c. It isn't travel. We stay in the same place and so does the other object. The distance between them increases, presumably because space is expanding. It seems as though expansion is one of the intrinsic properties of space.

So it isn't "faster than light travel", because it isn't travel.

"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.