Chess will never be solved, here's why

You could have said that every system is based on highly confirmed and verified hypotheses. Absolutely right that everything we hold to be true is a belief. That is due to the way our minds work. The compartments of our mind that appear to be marked "and these are truths" actually hold ideas with regard to which we behave AS IF they are unquestioned truths, because we accept them as truths, for various reasons.

"Iffy beliefs", on the other hand, are seen by our minds as just that, if our minds are functioning properly. There are varying degrees of "iffyness". People who may be seen as "mad" don't respond to or miss seeing such differences, among other things, possibly because their minds are overloaded with a jumble of perceptive and sensory input.

I did point out earlier, that if it were "pure logic", it would need two more premises, which I detailed.

I think that you should not dictate "what is logic" to logicians. Elroch is a mathematician and my subject is philosophy, which also demands an understanding of pure logic. In calling the above "pure logic", your claim can only be based on metaphor, since a logician sees the missing steps and rejects the claim, other than accepting it as one of "strong, subjective belief", which is evident. You cannot dictate to those who may have a clearer understanding.

#1409
No: the problem is rather: white to play, black draws.
It is only necessary to prove black has one response that draws against all reasonable white moves.
It is obvious to try with the most promising responses: either 1 d4 Nf6 or 1 d4 d5.
The good assistants decide which one to try.
If one of these draw, then it no longer matters if 1 d4 a5 draws as well or not. 1 d4 is then solved to a proven table base draw.
If neither 1...Nf6 nor 1...d5 draw, then 1...a5 will not draw either, as 1...a5 does not contribute to the black play as much as 1...d5 or 1...Nf6.

No.

You are guessing that it is impossible for black to have a winning strategy because you can't see how there could be a zugzwang in the opening position.

My superior understanding only permits me to believe this is unlikely (and to know I can't be 100% sure).

 There are only three game theoretic possibilities for 1. d4 a5 - either it is a win, a draw or a loss. Computer analysis indicates that it is most likely to be a draw (but neither other possibility can be excluded for certain). The fact that (imprecise) computer analysis makes the probability lower than that for 1. ... d5 is not significant to its status for the solution of chess. BOTH MOVES (and the other 16) NEED DEALING WITH ON AN EQUAL FOOTING.

I don't know how you get 'infinity' there.
Despite the gigantic size of the task - it is not an infinite task.
Definitely 'finite'.  

@Elroch is technically accurate in most if not all of his positions regarding the task referred to in the forum topic.
Unfortunately though - there's a lot of dancing around red herrings.
The positions being represented or pursued do not amount to progress.
And that could be because nobody here is actually involved in any project to 'solve' chess.  

On occasion - a particular somebody has stated some 'upper bounds' on relevant quantities - but he does so without presenting derivations.
If we're going to discuss the mathematics of the task then suggestions:
Suggestions that could be implemented - as opposed to dominating the discussion.  Nothing need dominate.

Math - like chess - lends itself to proofs. Or even does so directly.
Explicitly !  
In both cases - even built around such ! 
Math is even designed with such in mind !!

Investigate.  Proceed with an accurate premise.  Or premises.
Math well presented - speaks for itself. 
Regardless of how much whoever might want to obsess or ordain about the semantics of 'premise' - with a hand wave of imaginary authority. 

Start with hard and explicit numbers.  Include maths proofs - not links.
We know the number of possible positions is gigantic.
We know that only computers could sort the legal positions from the illegal ones.  
We know that humans and humanity literally and phsyically don't have the time to count up - sort - solve all the positions.
Repeated suggestions that its a matter of money - don't make any progress either.

Regarding the science involved as opposed to the math -
again - math helps tremendously in presenting science.
The power of modern supercomputers is measured in units called 'petaflops'.
Contemporary supercomputers operate at far under 1000 petaflops.
One petaflop is a trillion operations per second.
Apparently that is a straight trillion ...  not a 'byte' trillion as it were.
Am I positive?  Not yet.  It can be checked.
And its apparently an American trillion.  Not a British one.
Yes - they're different.  Unless that's changed.  

Point:  operations per second needs to be linked to rate of progress of solving somehow.
So does needed memory space.
Money ?  No need to even consider that.  If the task can't be physically completed in a practical period of time - no point in throwing money at it !  (but money is thrown at it.  So there's a different motive or motives.)


Are there ways to know that it 'can't be practically done' right now?
Yes - the task is so difficult that even just 7-piece positions couldn't be tablebased without skipping castling and en passant considerations.

Supercomputers have been around for decades -
but that 7-piece 'milestone' represents a very tiny percentage of the 236,196 possible material situations (which generously doesn't include promotion situations) and upon which each term of which in turn represents a varying total of positional arrangements.  For each.
Some of the more difficult of those 236,196 'situations' could each itself take billions of years to 'solve' perhaps.

Regarding the actual project and money put into it - 
maybe the people doing it don't want to publish some of the more gloomy numbers !   (the politics of grants and fundings and budgets).
Positions need to be sorted into three categories.
1) Illegal positions:  (no need to analyze those further - but they still have to be computer-identified or triaged before being dismissed - adding to the task)
2) Checkmate positions.  The next easiest.  Stop! 
No more analysis - its Checkmate folks. 
3)  The others.  Suggestion - put them aside.  Analyze later.
Where 'later' is putting it mildly !  But - count them up.

Projects doing this kind of thing might never publish those numbers ?
Why not ?   Back to financing again.  
Conjecture:  Such projects are perhaps linked to big business - .com interests - universities - or even governments and the military - computer manufacturers - software organizations.
Could it be some billionaire trying to feel more intellectually complete?
Doubtful - people don't become billionaires nor stay that way chasing such things.  

Haha brilliant. This is why I like @lfPatriotGames so much. Same strategy.

Provocative declarations of the improbable or unestablished -
make good clickbait? 
Say something invalid - so somebody has something to argue with ...

But it works the other way too -
declare something valid - so whoever can argue with it anyway.

Incidentally, I also don't believe it's possible for white to be zugwanged, such that there's a forced win for black. I cannot prove that it's impossible for white to be zugawanged because that would require a full solution of chess. I don't mean a weak or a strong solution: I've explained that I think such distinction is incorrect and that I think in different terms which are more geared to "meaningful" vs. "useless". That isn't intended to be a subjective categorisation but one based on moves and positions that will have a place in a solution versus those that won't. Anyone who thinks that's circular should think again. However, I think I know that white can't be zugzwanged and that's good enough for me. That's how life works & I'm just far better at guessing than tygxc.

     That is the crux of many of the disagreements we argue about here. Whether we can put our opinion of what the ultimate solution might be into the preconditions of the analysis used to "solve" chess. My own opinion is that perfectly-played chess will result in a draw, but I am not so convinced of my infallibility as to assert that it must be true.

well there's the 'I'm just far better' clickbait again.  In post #1416.

White wouldn't have to be 'zugzwanged' to have losing options on his first move.
And 'zugzwang' itself - is an incomplete term.  Often misunderstood.
There are situations where whoever loses - not because its his/her move -
but instead - because of the continuing obligation to move.
A different thing.  Such obligation producing a win for the opponent regardless of whose move it is.
Whether to make one move or a continuing series of moves.

I don't claim to be infallible but I've bet on a lot of things in my life: like my ability to climb a snowpeak over 15000 feet in the Himalayas, in thick mist, by myself and without a map or compass, and get back alive by doing a three day treck in one day on my 25th birthday. I probably shouldn't be alive but I am.

My take on it is that 'no mistakes will produce a draw' - is uncertain.
We simply don't know.
Many 'anecdotes' might so suggest - 
but do the supercomputers 'solve' all positions hypothetically arising from all GM games to so determine?
The short answer is No.
With some proof.   They can't so solve anyway.  Already established.
The fact that they can and do solve some positions does not so prove.
Most players can thoroughly solve K+R versus lone King too.
Fast.  They do.
Without computer assistance.  That doesn't mean they've 'solved' all positions leading to that.  In fact - they haven't.

Yes we do know but as yet, it hasn't been proven. It's not unlikely that any so-called proof would contain an error, too. Knowledge doesn't require proof.

There's no comparison between you and me. We're different people, having experienced different things in our lives. Get over it.

Decision whether chess is solved or not,

Unsolved.

You might.  Someday.  You might someday follow your own advice.
On something.   Maybe not here though.