Chess will never be solved, here's why

Experts are expert at playing at a human level. There's absolutely no evidence that bears any relation to perfect play. (But lots of evidence that it doesn't in the perfect play we know about i.e. tablebased endgames - much simpler than the opening.)

Without some way of relating the two I'd discount any evidence based on practical play. The ICCF and TCEC games corroborate nothing.

I don't believe, "1 Nh3 wins in 800 moves or even 1 e4 b5 wins for black in 700 moves", I've no idea where the flaws in opening theory are, but at a reasonable guess I'd say the there are many. I think the fact that nobody mentions the 50 move rule in opening books, but the 50 move rule according to the perfect information we do have appears to assume greater importance as the number of men increases, is probably an indication of just how far we are removed from perfection.

Perfection in chess is any move that doesn't lose in a hitherto perfectly played game.

In the hypothetical and non-existent scenario where chess is a forced win for white, a perfect move for white is any move which retains the forced win advantage; whilst for black, any random move is perfect. It's logically impossible for there to be a forced win for black, since if white can lose a move by triangulation or other means, so can black and it would therefore be actually and literally impossible to solve, even if the hypothetical, forced win for white really existed and hypothetically could be demonstrated. In a human game of chess, if a forced win existed, there would be no point in playing if the solution were even partially understood. Fortunately, that will never be the case.

@Optimissed #146

A perfect move depends only on the position from which the move is made, irrespective of whether previous play is perfect. If that position is a theoretical win in the game in question, it would be a move that doesn't draw or lose.

Whether a chess move is perfect depends on which kind of chess, basic rules or competition rules.

In the latter case the ply count has to to be taken as an attribute of the position.

So in this position 

White may make 49 moves between b8 and c8 and each move would be perfect (as would many others)  but from the position reached only Rc1# would be a perfect move under competition rules. No other move would lose, but any other move would draw. Under basic rules any move (including Rc1#) would be a perfect move.

Under competition rules perfect play by one player is play in which all moves by that player are perfect.

Under basic rules perfect play is play in which all his moves are perfect and for each position occurring that is theoretically winning for him there is a natural number n (possibly 0) such that mate is played after n moves. An infinite series of perfect moves is not perfect play under basic rules.

@Optimissed #147

I think your proof needs a little working on.

I gave this hint before, but 'll repeat it.

If you purport to prove something about the starting position and your proof contains nothing that distinguishes the starting position from some other position, then, if the proof is valid, what is proved must also be true of the other position. If it's not true of the other position that means your proof is missing something.

In this case your "proof" contains nothing intelligible that distinguishes the starting position from say this position. 

I'm still working on what the rest says, but you can probably tell me. Does what you purport to prove apply to that position?

What proof are you talking about? I know you're confused even if some others can't tell. Firstly, my opinion is my opionion, which I think has a much better chance of being correct that yours does on this subject and secondly, if you demand proofs of someone, even though they weren't offered, it would be good if you could base your demands on a necessity which can be proven accurate. As it is, you're making all sorts of claims and that's all they are.

<<White may make 49 moves between b8 and c8 and each move would be perfect (as would many others)  but from the position reached only Rc1# would be a perfect move under competition rules. No other move would lose, but any other move would draw. Under basic rules any move (including Rc1#) would be a perfect move.>>

If you can't apply my proposal to your situation, then I doubt any advice I could give you would help. I've experienced many times people who have no intention of understanding other people's arguments. However, I'll say this to at least point you in the right direction.

If you prioritise your competition rules so that they take precedence, then within the context of the competition rules taking precedence, my proposal obviously changes. If there's no such prioritisation, then they remain as they are.

Does that explain it? It ought to.

@Optimissed #151

The quote you give was part of a comment on #146 viz.

"Perfection in chess is any move that doesn't lose in a hitherto perfectly played game."

which involves the implicit assumption that chess is a draw.

If by "your situation" you mean the diagram I posted in #148 and by "my proposal" you mean the italicised phrase above, then obviously I can't apply your proposal to my situation because,  with your assumption that chess is a draw, my situation could not arise with a "hitherto perfect game". If the situation did arise then, in the line I suggest, Black is forced to make the moves Ka1 and Kb1 both of which lose so it would be impossible for him to continue the game with perfect moves according to your definition.

How does your proposal change under competition rules? Under those rules perfect play (presumably what you mean by "perfection in chess") corresponds simply with making perfect moves. It's under basic rules that a caveat is necessary. 

In #147 you say, "It's logically impossible for there to be a forced win for black, since ...".

I assumed the strange scribings that followed were intended as a proof (though I couldn't discern anything I'd usually call a proof).

If that wasn't the case I withdraw my suggestion that your proof might need some working on (though your English might).

Thats why its popular and interesting

#155
Checkers was popular and interesting too and was not 'designed' to be solved, and yet it has been solved.

it was solved

you can even stalemate your opponent to make them lose

I have two points to make here. Firstly, according to the evidence we have, the proposal that chess is a draw is probably correct but nevertheless, it's an hypothesis which, according to the opinion of many, including myself, is certainly true. But my opinion on it doesn't matter, when you deal with it. It's simply an hypothesis, albeit a strong one which is accepted as true by many. The two proposals I made are correct iff the hypothesis that chess is a forced draw is correct.

In order for there to be useful conversation around this and around your conjectures also, you have to accept an hypothesis in the proper spirit of one and to make the necessary, logical steps in order to apply your own proposal to it. It shouldn't be too difficult if you were willing to apply the same rationality to it as you do to your own ideas. That is, you allot credulity to your own ideas: noticeably so.

Secondly, you tend to dismiss the ideas of others which seem to contradict your own ideas. You may believe you do it cleverly and correctly but all the same, it makes it obvious that you never properly consider opposing ideas and this has always been obvious, just as it was obvious with, say, @CooloutAC. He is intelligent but similarly unwilling or incapable of taking on board conflicting opinion, believing as he does that his ideas are always correct.

The claim "Opening play largely stays the same even with more radical rules changes." is not very well supported by the paper. There are large changes in the evaluation of lines described in the paper.

#159
See Figure 4: largely the same results across the rules variants.
Also "Stalemate=win chess has little effect on the opening and middlegame play" - Kramnik

VARIANTS

Even without adding new (different) pieces, the board size can be increased to 10x10 or FR could become more popular. I like increasing the board size. Kramnik has a good idea in eliminating castling in one move.

I'm too dumb for this discussion haha

uhhhh

crazyhouse & bughouse are my favorites... 960, capture anything, 3-check & 4-player chess are all cool too & i like the 'fog of war' concept, but 'no-castling' just seems to kill off the ability to spice the game up with opposite-side castling & i can't really get into the idea.  (nice pfp DH)   😆