Argument for chess being solved...

can we just agree chess has been solved and it is a draw? The only reason for black or white to play for a win is ego, ok, maybe money. I think GM games are essentially split in 3rds, 33 and a third percent w/l/draw. 

Agreed? 🙃😏🤨

 trust your "authority" on the subject its a little over my head

It will never be literally solved, but depending on how sloppy your definition is of the word "solved" you could even call it solved already. This is why topics like this in the past have gone on forever i.e. idiots don't know what "solved" means.

Yes, chess is extremely likely to be a draw with best play.

No, professionals don't draw 1/3rd of their games. They draw well over 50%.

More than hope, what people do is play practical chess. Ideally you pose problems for your opponent to solve in positions that you understand well (at least well relative to your rating).

The way I see it, when playing a peer OTB, is if I can pose 3-5 problems, then they're likely to error at least once or twice, and those will be my chances to get an edge or win. Of course the better your position is, the more problems you're able to pose to your opponent.

(And of course unforced errors happen too, but between peers, usually the errors they make without knowing it are errors you're also not good enough to notice)

Easy on the derogatory language brah. Care to define “solved” for all the idiots?  

The problem is, we may define “solved” multiple ways. 

1. A single open/middle/endgame line that is unbeatable? Doubtful for either side of the board.  

2. A single opening that is unbeatable from either side of the board, with perfect play? Nah 

I am sure you can come up with your own definition, or many, and this is why the debate persists and I, personally, would like some closure. Lol

GREETINGS PROFESSOR FALKEN.

To solve chess you'd have to catalog every position. Just like an endgame tablebase, except with all 32 pieces.

It wont happen because that's a big number.

So then someone asks "but don't computers deal with big numbers?"

and the answer is "big" is relative. It's much bigger than the numbers computers deal with.

So then the next question is "but don't computers get bigger and faster every year?"

And the answer is "big" is relative. It's much bigger than future computers will be able to deal with.

But even so, topics like this tend to go on and on and on...

I can’t imagine why 

Yes you get a participation trophy 

Spock proved chess is not a draw.

Here's my question, if 2 computers just made random moves, how long would it take for a game to end?

Everyone seems to lean towards either a draw or a win for white. Is it possible that moving first actually creates a weakness or does the fact that the N can move back and forth remove that possibility?

Even if chess was "solved" it wont make a difference to us mortals.  We still need to play the game, and its impossible to remember every single move.

As an unauthorized spokesperson for all the idiots out there, I feel like I can speak on our behalf on this topic. Solved means win. If you win, you have solved the problem. Sometimes you solve it, sometimes you dont. Since the whole problem of chess is how to win, it seems like winning is the solution. Solved, solution, same thing. Of course, some of my fellow idiots may have a different opinion. You'd be surprised how often we disagree. You should see us talk about politics.

You don't need to catalog every line and every legal position. All that is needed is one line, start to end, that forces a checkmate or draw, and elimination of all variations from black that create a different outcome- similar to the reverse mate tables that currently exist.

Right