Chess will never be solved, here's why

What you are describing is empirical modelling. You have a tiny amount of empirical data with a complex relationship beyond precise analysis - you can think of it as a black box - and  you would like to predict more similar data.  The process and the reasoning involved are scientific in nature rather than mathematical. Mathematics is about deductive reasoning. 

Putting aside the issue that the empirical data may be irrelevant to the topic of this forum, the scientific method would indicate you need to come up with a parcimonious model, test that model with a sufficient amount of data, and then you would be in a position to make predictions that are unlikely to have huge errors.

Unfortunately, you seem to have skipped everything that gives the scientific method reliability. Have you forgotten what the scientific method is, or did you not realise you were making a sort of attempt to use it?

Quote:
"Unfortunately, you seem to have skipped everything that gives the scientific method reliability. Have you forgotten everything about science? "
@Elroch - didn't you see a few posts ago ...
Somebody (not I) said he is 'pretty sure' that he 'knows more'.
Didn't that post and that remark already pre-answer your question ?
And pre-answer many other questions ?

whats this thread.. 2150 message. are you unemployed or something? mathematical proofs, code samples.. geez. as if dudes are saving the world here..

People read novels too.  And watch movies.
And play chess.   Are they all 'unemployed' ?

so reading a novel and writing & reading forum posts about something are the same. good. people can talk about chess being solvable or unsolvable but this level.. is beyong the necessity. if you know too much this topic why dont you write a program, make a product instead of this. besides no one will read all of this.. thousands of pages will be lost here even if they had useful information. write a book, form a product.. so people can use. whats this?

'what's this?' - is you here.
You seem to be rejecting the forum topic - but here you are.  Anyway.
Perhaps there'll now be many posts about 'what's this?' now.  
And some pingpong.  Your serve.  But the 'ball' might not be returned.

I'm here because i saw the post count. You keep dodging the point. this is pointless.

#2175

"What you are describing is empirical modelling." ++ Yes, that is right
"You have a tiny amount of empirical data with a complex relationship beyond precise analysis - you can think of it as a black box - and  you would like to predict more similar data.  The process and the reasoning involved are scientific in nature rather than mathematical."
++ Yes, that is right, but to do that I use some simple high school mathematics that some seem unable or unwilling to understand
"Mathematics is about deductive reasoning"
++ Here we can argue about, but that is semantics. There are several branches of mathematics that are more inductive than deductive, e.g. statistics, curve fitting, game theory...
What Tromp did for example was mostly inductive: he counted the number of possible chess positions, then he randomly sampled 10,000 of them, he found 538 of these to be legal and from that he induced that there are 10^44 legal chess positions.

"Putting aside the issue that the empirical data may be irrelevant to the topic of this forum, the scientific method would indicate you need to come up with a parcimonious model, test that model with a sufficient amount of data, and then you would be in a position to make predictions that are unlikely to have huge errors."
++ There is a difference between 2 very different things:
1) solving chess, and
2) assessing the feasibility of solving chess.
It is pointless to attempt 1) before 2): nobody wants to embark on a million years of calculation: that is not feasible. 2) does not need to be very precise: whether it is 5 years, or 3, or 7 makes no practical difference.

"Unfortunately, you seem to have skipped everything that gives the scientific method reliability. Have you forgotten what the scientific method is, or did you not realise you were making a sort of attempt to use it?"
++ There are different scientific methods, boiling down to deduction (as used mostly but not exclusively in pure mathematics) and to induction (as often used in physics, but also in statistics etc.) Yes, I try to make use of the few data scraped from various sources coupled with inductive and deductive reasoning to answer 2 questions:
1) Was GM Sveshnikov right when he predicted chess can be weakly solved in 5 years, and
2) How could that be done?

Chess is the original War game from India around 2500 years back.

unlike other games a variety of differentiated pieces in play all move in different ways unlike for example draughts or checkers.

a simple mathematical calculation will tell you how huge are the possible variations in moves.

and by the way mastery of chess is mastery of the endgame where 56. E4 is a win and 56. E5 is a loss. Most chess.com players will easily lose a win game in the endgame!!

A chess engine or computer can calculate maybe 25 moves ahead a good human only 6 or 8 that's why Deep Blue could win against the world champion.

Chess is truth . It's impossible to fake your result in the chess board no matter how much you bluff or bluster.

finally Paul Murphy on chess

to play Chess, is the sign of a Gentleman

To play chess Well, is the sign of a WASTED LIFE!!!

Chess is a very good game but,  should be kept in its place. NOT the be all and end all of the Universe!!

Cheers

 "Morphy,1001" .....

I like @morphy1001 's post.
Regarding the top levels of chess players - some have handled it well - others have not.
Euwe - Bottvinnik - Lasker.  They all did not seem to let the game beat them.
Fischer didn't do so well.
But maybe - a lot of that has to with things beyond chess - not the game itself.  

"Chess is the original War game from India around 2500 years back."

Yes - chess had predecessors in India. 
One of them was called Chatturanga I believe.
And could the idea of pawns being promoted in 'afterlife' be connected with 'reincarnation' beliefs in that part of the world ?
Just remarking there might be a connection there.

I am related to Fischer!?

My view on promotion, a loyal footsoldier can become a fieldmarshal....

Good choice I think of top players not obsessed, Mikhail is the "Russian doyen" an AI Research establishment director in real life, chess is quite correctly very important to Russia (not related to the war, please try and forget for a moment). It's like music an unique international language currency and fellowship similar to the scientific community.

Bottvinnik isn't the strongest player ever.
But he may be the Greatest.
When you consider the scope and magnitude of his achievements -
both inside chess and outside chess -
and what his chess career might have looked like if there hadn't been this 'obstacle' called World War II. 

No. Please can I repeat vigorously. Life does not imitate chess it's a game life is real. Sort of.

Take the tip from Morphy. Or beat him at chess....

There's even a theory that every chess game would end in a draw if nobody makes a mistake.
That's never been proven and might never be proven ...
(want it Disproven right away?  Lol !  Somebody doesn't make a mistake but they lose on the Clock !   )

No such things as mistakes in general

it's like psychometric texting everyone has their own style.

Testing.

What ??  No 'mistakes' in chess ??
You walk into mate in one and didn't have to?
That's 'style'?
Well its certainly 'style' on a way to look at it.  

In general.

NOT about silly errors