Chess will never be solved, here's why

Your post says that you do not know what deduction is. I suggest reading the wiki article to learn this.

#3556
Induction would be: I have looked at a data base of 4 million games and found that 1 e4 and 1 d4 offer better chances of winning.

Induction is also what AlphaZero did: I have played 700,000 games against myself and I conclude that 1 e4 and 1 d4 offer better chances of winning.

What Capablanca did was deduction.
That is the meaning of his 'theoretically' as opposed to 'in practice'
Laws of Chess -> Q, B, N are more active in the center -> it is important to secure central squares for Q, B, N
Laws of Chess -> to make a bishop exert its power a pawn must move -> e/g & d/b pawns
Laws of Chess -> king security is important -> g & b pawns not as good as e & d pawns
Laws of Chess -> e4 & d4 secure more central squares for knights than e3 & d3
altogether e4 & d4 are the best first moves.

So chess being a forced win for white, is that an induction or deduction? Or could it be reduction or conduction?

Its a non sequitur.  A false conclusion.  A misconception.
Disinformation and misinformation.

One might think that the internet would make disinformation more unlikely by educating and informing people.
But there's been a remarkable paradox instead.
The internet is being used to push and enhance and develop Disinfo and Misinfo.  And evil influences.
Including but not limited to - theocracy - Covid disinformation - flat earth doctrine - and many other negatives.
Disinformation about computer projects in chess is a special case of that here - coming from just one person here.  (not named)

Maybe it's not so much disinformation, or even misinformation. Maybe it's just personal experience. which is neither of those. 

It's really difficult to persuade someone that their personal experiences are "wrong". I think there is nothing more convincing than results. 

"it's just personal experience."
From the nodes/square root/only four moves  guy?
'Personal experience' pushing such stuff?
Yeah - he's got Experience.  
But that's 'production' experience.  Not 'encounter' experience.
Unless you think he's been conned by somebody else.
Which is possible.  Not likely though.  Laid on much too thick.

I don't know what that means, but in the examples you gave, from covid to flat earth to theocracy personal experience is probably going to trump anything else. So no matter what reasons or arguments someone has, it has to somehow overcome the results that someone has experienced. That's difficult, to say the least. 

From my experience, there is no way to prove chess is a draw or forced win. So, either position is perfectly reasonable. To say one is "wrong" is just an opinion, which doesn't mean much. Saying chess is a forced win for white is identical to saying it's a draw. Because nobody can prove otherwise, nobody can trump my personal experience. 

'no way to prove' so either is 'reasonable'.  'Perfectly'.  
Hey PG - love that avatar !
Really I do.  I mean that as friendly rather than personal.
I now have the personal experience of having seen it.
It represents joy and vibrancy and the best things in life.

I win more with white. I also have seen, firsthand, results that show white, overall, (not just me) wins more. Also white has an advantage, which will eventually be used to force a win in any game.  But that's a long way off, in my opinion. 

So until someone can show a win every time (with either color) or someone show a draw every time, I'll stick with my personal experiences.

White wins more - doesn't mean he has a forced win.
You've experienced 'be used to force a win in any game'
Okay.  Post stands.
But also had 'can show a win every time' with 'until'.
But 'stick with personal experience' that isn't conclusive.
OK.  That stands too.  Its a change from the nodes/square root/4 moves stuff.

Prediction:  few will argue with 'be used to force a win in any game' versus 'until' which is contradicted by 'be used to force a win in any game' which is 'personal experience.
So its A contradicted by B but back to A to be 'stuck with'but which doesn't happen.  
Hey I like it !

"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"

Yes it does. 

What?

Why?  Why would that one follow from the other?
Lead is heavy.  Doesn't mean that somebody can't lift it.

This is actually a good post.
'No need to believe'.

Nope. Not in the least. 

Which is why for all practical purposes, I think chess has already been solved. 

I agree. And there is also no need to believe that chess is a forced draw. 

But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned. 

What do you mean you choose forced win for white? You mean thats your guess? Why do you wanna make a guess based on very unconvincing or nonexistent reasoning, isn't it just reasonable to say we don't know until chess is solved. This convo is confusing me.

Yes. It's reasonable to say you don't know. It's reasonable to say it's a forced draw. And it's reasonable to say it's a forced win for white. They are all perfectly reasonable. But since at a level we as humans will never achieve it's one or the other, I choose forced win for white. 

The laws of chess neither say that controlling the center or having the most active pieces is best, nor do they mention either as a win condition.  In fact in some cases a move that gives more control of the center can be worse than one that does not.

For instance in this position Nh6 is better than Nf6 even though it involves putting the knight on the edge of the board while Nf6 attacks the center as Nf6 hangs mate in 1 while Nh6 defends against the mate in 1 threat.  So simply showing that a given move gives more control of the center or leads to more active pieces than another move isn't the same as proving that it's objectively better.