Chess will never be solved, here's why

Let's make it a bit simpler for you

This position is winning for White.

and if we add a White knight.

This position is losing for White

How is your stalemate check going to catch that?

Will Martin complain about the research I'm about to post?
Demand 'sources'? Should I say '25 websites'?
Does Martin want me to prove that Australia exists?
Martin's a good man. With a good eye for details.
But his diagram missed the point again.
And I was aware of that long before I started my suggestions.
------------------
You don't start the process with the losing side having a rook. You start with lone king.
And you don't start with losing positions for the side up material.
Should I be disappointed that Martin didn't catch those things instantly?
No. (maybe M is being facetious? I doubt it. M isn't Optimissed.)
But its possible. Facetious.
M still refusing to start with K+R versus K.
M trying to block progress?

--------------------------
Research results coming up!

Did the internet research:
1) Yes John Tromp Included ‘Whose Move It Is’ !
His 4.8 × 10^44 estimate does account for both White to move and Black to move.
He doubles his base counts explicitly to include both sides’ turns, as confirmed in his GitHub README and Chess.com posts.
It’s not just diagrams—it’s positions, and the side-to-move factor is baked in.
In other words he multipled by two at the end to arrive at his famous number.
------
2) Of Course, John Tromp Didn’t Include 50-Move or 75-Move Rule Counts: 
Which would be Ridiculous!
He’s counting snapshots, not game histories—same as most tablebases like Syzygy.
----------------
3) John Tromp Has Posted on Chess.com !!
Check his posts like “On the number of chess positions” (July 9, 2021) in the forums. 
He’s shared details of his work directly with the community !!
More research coming up. From the internet.
If I can find it. Or get it.

RIP AVRO, happy weekend, believe in technology

No one is ever truly dead.

Chess is a game of immense complexity, and while it’s theoretically finite, "solving" it—meaning determining a perfect strategy that guarantees a win or draw from any position for both sides—is considered practically impossible with current knowledge and technology. Below is a list of 100 reasons why chess cannot be fully solved, ranging from computational limits to philosophical and practical considerations. These reasons are grounded in the game's nature, human and technological constraints, and the current understanding of mathematics and computation as of March 15, 2025.

Enormous Number of Possible Games: The number of possible chess games is estimated at 10^120 (Shannon number), vastly exceeding the number of atoms in the observable universe (10^80).
Finite but Intractable: While the game tree is finite, its size makes exhaustive analysis intractable.
Computational Power Limits: Current supercomputers cannot process even a fraction of all possible positions.
Exponential Growth: Each move multiplies the number of possible future positions, leading to exponential complexity.
Storage Constraints: Storing a complete solution would require more data capacity than exists on Earth.
Time Constraints: Even with infinite computing power, the time to compute all outcomes would exceed human lifespans.
32-Piece Complexity: Unlike simpler games (., checkers with fewer pieces), chess starts with 32 pieces, increasing variability.
64 Squares: The 8x8 board provides a large state space compared to smaller games.
Diverse Piece Movements: Six types of pieces with unique movement rules create unpredictable interactions.
Opening Variety: Thousands of viable opening moves prevent early simplification.
Middle Game Chaos: The middle game introduces near-infinite strategic possibilities.
Endgame Depth: Even simplified endgames (., king and rook vs. king) require deep calculation.
No Perfect Heuristic: No known algorithm can perfectly evaluate all positions without exhaustive search.
Human Intuition: Much of chess strategy relies on intuition, which machines struggle to replicate fully.
Dynamic Evaluation: Static evaluation functions fail to capture dynamic positional changes.
Symmetry Breaking: Small asymmetries in positions lead to vastly different outcomes.
Draw Rules: 50-move rule and threefold repetition complicate endgame solutions.
Stalemate Possibility: The existence of stalemate prevents straightforward win/loss outcomes.
Insufficient Endgame Databases: Current tablebases only cover up to 7 pieces, far short of 32.
Quantum Computing Limits: Even quantum computers (as of 2025) cannot handle chess’s full complexity.
Algorithmic Gaps: No algorithm exists to efficiently prune the game tree without losing accuracy.
Infinite Horizon Problem: Long-term consequences of moves are hard to predict precisely.
Opponent Errors: Solving assumes perfect play, but real games involve mistakes.
Psychological Factors: Human play includes bluffs and psychology, unaccounted for in a solution.
Incomplete Theory: Chess theory is still evolving, with new strategies emerging.
No Closed-Form Solution: Unlike tic-tac-toe, chess lacks a simple mathematical resolution.
Piece Promotion: Pawn promotion to multiple piece types adds combinatorial explosion.
Castling Rules: Castling introduces additional branching in early game analysis.
En Passant: This special rule further complicates pawn interactions.
Starting Position Balance: The initial position’s near-perfect balance resists easy resolution.
Depth of Calculation: Grandmasters calculate 10-20 moves ahead; solving requires far more.
Non-Deterministic Elements: Human creativity introduces unpredictable moves.
Resource Allocation: Computing a solution would divert resources from other scientific pursuits.
Energy Requirements: The energy needed to compute all positions is astronomical.
Moore’s Law Slowdown: Hardware improvements are plateauing, limiting future gains.
Software Limitations: Current chess engines rely on approximations, not perfection.
Evaluation Trade-offs: Speed vs. accuracy trade-offs prevent exhaustive analysis.
Unknown Optimal Play: We don’t know if White can force a win or if draws are inevitable.
Game Length: Games can theoretically last thousands of moves with perfect play.
Historical Data Limits: Past games inform strategy but don’t cover all possibilities.
AI Bias: Machine learning models are trained on human games, inheriting flaws.
Overfitting Risk: Solutions tailored to specific positions may fail generally.
Complexity Theory: Chess may belong to a complexity class beyond current solvability.
Undecidability: Some positions may be undecidable without full computation.
Infinite Regression: Proving a solution requires verifying every counter-move.
Lack of Symmetry: Unlike simpler games, chess lacks exploitable symmetries.
Piece Value Variability: Relative piece values shift by position, defying fixed rules.
Tactical Explosions: Sacrifices and combinations multiply possibilities unpredictably.
Strategic Depth: Positional play adds layers beyond mere calculation.
No Universal Metric: No single metric (., material, king safety) defines winning.
Evolving Hardware: A solution today might be obsolete with tomorrow’s tech.
Distributed Computing Limits: Even global networks can’t handle chess’s scale.
Error Propagation: Small miscalculations in early moves cascade into major errors.
Unexplored Positions: Many legal positions have never been played or analyzed.
Randomness Absence: Chess’s deterministic nature prevents probabilistic shortcuts.
No Known Weakness: Unlike solved games, chess has no exploitable flaw.
Human Interest: Solving chess might reduce its appeal as a creative pursuit.
Funding Issues: The cost of solving chess outweighs practical benefits.
Ethical Questions: Resources might be better spent elsewhere (., medicine).
Verification Problem: How would we confirm a proposed solution is correct?
Infinite Subgames: Each position spawns a new solvable but complex subgame.
Counterintuitive Moves: Optimal play might involve moves humans overlook.
Learning Curve: Teaching an AI to solve chess perfectly is undefined.
Time Dilation: Near-endgame positions stretch decision trees further.
No Final Proof: No mathematical proof exists for chess’s solvability.
Context Dependence: Move strength depends on opponent tendencies.
Incomplete Notation: Standard notation doesn’t capture all strategic nuances.
Parallel Universes: Hypothetical multiverse computing remains sci-fi.
Entropy Increase: Complexity grows as pieces interact over time.
No Oracle: No theoretical “oracle” exists to reveal perfect moves.
Language Barrier: Describing a full solution exceeds human comprehension.
Philosophical Limits: Solving chess might require redefining “solved.”
Statistical Noise: Random sampling of positions yields no clear pattern.
Cultural Evolution: Chess’s rules could change (., variants), nullifying a solution.
Opponent Modeling: A solution must account for all possible opponent styles.
Hidden Patterns: Undiscovered patterns might defy current logic.
Cognitive Limits: Humans can’t grasp chess’s full depth, even with tools.
Practicality: A solution wouldn’t fit in memory for real-time use.
Infinite Refinement: Each solved layer reveals deeper unsolved layers.
Chaos Theory: Small move differences amplify into chaotic outcomes.
No Endgame Shortcut: Simplifying late stages still requires full analysis.
Hardware Failure: Long computations risk physical breakdowns.
Software Bugs: Errors in code could invalidate a solution.
Unproven Assumptions: Solving assumes perfect play is definable.
Paradoxical Outcomes: Perfect play might lead to unexpected draws.
Interdisciplinary Gap: Math, CS, and game theory haven’t converged on a method.
Scalability Issue: Techniques for smaller games don’t scale to chess.
Temporal Cost: By the time it’s solved, humanity might not care.
No Consensus: Experts disagree on whether White or Black has an edge.
Recursive Complexity: Each move’s evaluation depends on future moves.
Undefined Goal: Is “solving” a win for White or a draw for both?
Redundancy Problem: Many paths lead to the same outcome, bloating analysis.
No Reverse Engineering: We can’t work backward from checkmate universally.
Fragmented Progress: Partial solutions (., openings) don’t unify.
Information Theory: Chess exceeds the information density we can process.
No Master Key: No single principle unlocks all positions.
Eternal Mystery: Chess’s allure lies in its unsolvability.
Finite Progress: Each advance reveals more unsolved territory.
Cosmic Scale: Chess’s complexity rivals universal phenomena.
Humanity’s Limit: Our tools and minds may never match chess’s depth.
In summary, chess’s vastness, combined with technological, theoretical, and practical barriers, ensures it remains unsolved. While simpler games like checkers have been cracked, chess’s scale and richness keep it beyond our grasp—for now and likely forever.

Nah, not forever

Procedure: Report, ignore.

Who?

He is not the brightest bulb in this dimwitted chess thread is he....

Who?

Himself seems to make most sense

RIP Norwaychess, he could not bear it all

Human mind can be fascinating. Why would he bother to put in the effort to create an account for making one spam post and then go ahead and inactivate the account himself?

Gronk probably suggested it.

Maybe it was a way to show he is always here, he is everyone, and no one. And the person who created the longest thread in chess.com history. And will always be here....

Norwaychess is still here.
Unless he cancelled. Edit: he did!
And Chessintellect returns after three years and then closes Again??
After 12 minutes?
Possibility: he has a second account as allowed by chess.com for years.
Will I get blocked for saying so? No fear.
And nothing wrong with having second account either.
Funny though.
Posting the forum and then 'leaving' while maybe watching and posting all this time anyway!
----------------------
News: Grok (which M likes to call Gronk)
admits it doesn't know whether the tablebases are generating their positions to be solved by simply assiging more pieces to available squares - or using reverse captures to add pieces.
Regarding the idea of applying Logic to many many positions instead of crunching -
the situation seems to be that that's liked but software engineers haven't published about it - except maybe for Checkers or other games. Not chess.
Or not yet. Or its there on the net but not easy to find.

RIP ChessIntellectreturns, he could not bear it too

emilio you're right - Norwaychess only lasted 8 hours.
similiar to CIR account - the original poster.

'Norway" lasted for 8 hours?

Hmm, it seems wrong, Denmark fell in only 6 hours.

He may not be missed.

Norway meaning the account whose name begins with Norway who briefly posted.
If you were making a pun ... 
What kind of cars do people drive in Norway?
Fjords.