Is it impossible/possible to derive a formula or sets of formulas that lead to winning chess games?

Formula needs an input and then gives an output. We are talking about chess algorithms because it needs an input (position) and gives an output (next move). Simple as that.

Chess is not a simple game and takes a lot of work. I'm not sure looking for easy solutions to the game is very helpful if one wants to become a great player.

Formula having inputs/outputs doesn't mean that anything with inputs/outputs is a formula. That's basic logic. An algorithm is not a formula. Original question was about formula.

I think “there is one or are some” but not as simple as E=mc2 or the Pythagorean theorem!

Huh... if you want a formal discussion about that feel free to PM. I don't really think this thread is about that, honestly. It's just a casual conversation. But no, there's always a smart prick trying to outsmart everybody.

Just to clarify your original question in view of my recent disagreement with breakingbad12 - you mean formula in same meaning as used in science? Then Stockfish algorithm is not a formula. What do you think?

GM David Smerdon recently reviewed a book here that could be very close to what you (we) seek!

 

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

 

http://www.secretofchess.com/pages/view-excerpts

 

uri65, algorithms are somewhat new to me. I’m more familiar with formulas in science or Microsoft Excel and other fields....I just believe that when there are numerical values involved along with variables....ex pawn moves = total of 1 or 2 squares forward+ 1 capture + en passé = 4 max....then others may be devised for other pieces depending on wether or not squares are occupied or unoccupied....I just think formulas do exist for the strongest moves then less strong just like an engine puts out....it’s just the human mind has not been capable enough to conceive what seems inconceivable at this point in time! Furthermore, such sought formula(s) although may not yield accurate or precise moves but a close approximation or probability to the best move is my thinking.

That's a nice way to put it. Thank you.

Short answer: Chess is a draw, therefore it's impossible to find a forced win from the starting position.

Please, show us where you read this! If it's a chess.com forum by an anonymous poster, it's worth precisely as much as the paper it's written on.

I'd bet money on Magnus being able to draw at least one out of every 20 games as White, even against a perfect machine.

@winnersp.  from what i remembered he actually challenged a CM here @streetfighter and drew or beat him.  it didn't end well ...  the former's account was closed for fairplay.  the latter i believe took time out to write a book or something.

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/48506085

 There's also @chuzhakin

that game was an amazing find, kos!  never heard of chuzhakin though.

Good find! Yeah, I figured the chances of his account still being open were pretty much nil, haha.

Chess doesn't have a forced win from move 1. If it did then it would be a rather useless game to play. White would always win.

 

So in short there is no formula or a set of moves to follow from move 1 that wud guarantee you a win.

....not sure if I’m making sense here. If a forced win from move 1 leads to a draw, then wouldn’t it make sense to make one bad move then forced moves after that which lead to a win? Or does one bad move by either side lead to their loss...only seems logical.

Not that we know of. But there might be one.

A forced win from move 1 would lead to a win. Unless the player makes a mistake, or doesn't know how to play it.