True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

This is a fascinating game! Do you have the complete PGN of it?

Sorry, Mr TheGrobe, but the evidence is overwhelming that there is no forced win for White from the starting postion and that chess played with no errors results in a draw.

However I do repect your opinion...

I came across this today while trying to research this problem.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054165

Quite technical, but nice graphs. According to the authors, the average advantage of the white player is +0.17 now, and predicted to rise to +0.23 eventually. However, I don't think they are implying that having that advantage guarantees a win for white with best play.

Theoretically, a perfect move (or best move) is one that does not change the evaluation (win, draw, loss, although it's impossible to make a move that changes the evaluation from a loss anyways) of the game, and a perfect game is composed solely of perfect moves. Unfortunately it is usually impossible to determine whether a move is perfect. A position may have several perfect moves.

I have a theory which has only been slightly tested.  It is if you give a strong chess engine the opening moves of any sound opening [example 1. e4  e5

2. Nf3  Nc6  3. Bb5] that the longer the chess engine looks at the sequence the more likely the evaluation will tend towards 0.00.

So if you put the above Ruy Lopez position on the chess engine for a day it might say 0.18 advantage and if you let the engine run for a week it might then say 0.14 advantage and if you let the chess engine  run for a month--it might say 0.12 advantage etc.

as far as im consurned it is true

Evidence is not proof.  I suspect that your educated guess is very likely correct, however at the moment it is just that: an educated guess.

When you consider that K+N or K+B (or even K+N+N) vs. a lone king are a dead drawn it's touch to believe that merely starting with the initiative can be reliably leveraged into a win for White.

Who knows, though, maybe it can.

Mr Grobe, it is not just my opinion ask almost any master.

chess was invented a REALLY REALLY long time ago. the reason it is so populer is that it hasnt been solved. because of that I hope it is never solved.

So you are claiming chess has already been solved then?

Even if it were solved it would still be every bit as fun and challenging to play.

It wouldn't not make any practical difference at all.  It's of purely academic interest.

Mr Grob you ask "So you are claiming chess has already been solved then?"

As I mentioned several times this depends on the definition of "solved"

If "solved" means do we know the result with best play by both sides the answer is yes, we know the result and the result is a draw. [by "we I mean the players who know the most about chess i.e. masters and above]

I don't dispute your definition of "solved", I think the problem lies with your definition of "know".

Nobody can "know" hardly anything with 100% certainty.  I am 99.9999% sure the sun will rise tomorrow.

Masters and above [at least 98% of them] are more than 99% sure that chess is a draw with best play on both sides.  I, personally am 99.9345% sure that chess is a draw with best play on both sides.

That is the best I can do.

Making up statistics does not strengthen your argument.

I'm 99.9346% sure...

I'm 65% water.