Chess will never be solved, here's why

g6 looks good there.

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. 

But one doesn't have to choose ...
Will it rain 12 days from now in one's neighborhood?
Unknown - might have to wait till until its close enough for a good weather report.
But even there - the weather reports can be wrong.
We don't know if it'll rain on all the Thursdays for the rest of this year.
Or not.
Must we choose now for all the future Thursdays? 
Its to be all or none and we will do so by 'personal experience'?

#3559
"So chess being a forced win for white, is that an induction or deduction? Or could it be reduction or conduction?"
Chess is a draw.
That is by induction, deduction, as well as reduction.
Induction from millions of grandmaster, correspondence, and engine games.

Deduction:
White is +1 tempo up
3 tempi = 1 pawn
+1 pawn wins
+1 tempo is not enough to win
chess is a draw

Reduction:
Assume chess were a forced win
1 tempo would thus be enough to win
2 tempi thus would certainly win
black can afford to lose another tempo:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1768345 
Chess is not a forced win
Chess is a draw

#3582
"In fact in some cases a move that gives more control of the center can be worse than one that does not."
++ There is a hierarchy: king safety > material > position
"5.1.1      
The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7." This takes precedence over all the rest
"3.7.5.1
When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’." This leads to an advantage of +1 pawn enough to win.
Rules 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 lead to importance of the center

#3589
"I was thinking of A quantum computer"
++ A quantum computer is not even needed.
Per GM Sveshnikov conventional computers can do it in 5 years.

The rules you mentioned just imply that queens, bishops, and knights control the most squares when in the center, and have the most legal moves, but that is not the same as proving that any given move that gives more control of the center is objectively better than one that gives less control of the center.  Having more legal moves just means that a move that has more control of the center looks better than one that has less, as far as you can calculate, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively better.  In chess moves that look bad can sometimes turn out to be the best moves, meaning that in order to solve chess we would need to look at any moves that we don't know to hang mate regardless of how bad those moves may look.

#3590
A queen, bishop, or knight in the center controls more squares and thus offers more possibilities for attack on the enemy king and defence of the own king.
If all the rest is the same: immediate king safety, material, then the centralised position is better.
That is why 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4 and thus can be disregarded in solving chess.

check my forum

btw i didn't copy i posted mine earlier that this one

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-100-analyzed-why/

also the person who made this forum is closed

and notice his comment has -18 votes

sad XD

So in other words there are more ways for the game to end with you checkmating your opponent and fewer ways for your opponent to checkmate you if you control the center.  Having more ways to win, and fewer ways to lose isn't what determines if a move is objectively better when it comes to solving chess, as all that matters is the end result assuming perfect play, and the number of moves to forced mate if there is one.  In order for the argument that when all else is equal control of the center is always better to be used for solving chess there needs to be a formal proof, both that control of the center always leads to a better  or equal outcome with all else being equal assuming perfect play from both players, and that all else really is either equal with regard to two different moves.

#3596
"there are more ways for the game to end with you checkmating your opponent and fewer ways for your opponent to checkmate you if you control the center"
++ Yes and also the opponent will be forced to make unfavorable trades

"there needs to be a formal proof, both that control of the center always leads to a better or equal outcome" ++ This is well established and all grandmasters and theoreticians of centuries said so. How formal do you want it? The AlphaZero paper only confirms it, and it was fed with nothing but the Laws of Chess, no other human input.

He's voluntarily closed though.  Could return.

Alpha Zero was fed the laws of chess, and then it was allowed to play against itself, meaning that its conclusions about positions and best moves come from its experience playing chess, and so is inductive reasoning from past games.

JUST LOCK THIS FORUM.. chess.com moderators.. no 2 worst ever forum 

#3599
Induction is not inferior to deduction.

Anyway do you really believe there is even a slight possibility that 1 e4 and 1 d4 draw and 1 a4 were a forced win for white?

If you do not believe the importance of the center, then what about material?
I am sure 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is a forced win for black. However, I do not have all possible lines analysed to checkmate and neither do I need to. Can you accept that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced win for black without all lines to checkmate?

Sadder is how jealous and desperate you are since this topics has 180 pages while yours only has 25 although the op here is gone and you're still trying so hard to revive your topic.

Yes we know and you won't let us forget.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=173#comment-70448645

Here's something about inductive versus deductive -
https://www.dictionary.com/e/inductive-vs-deductive/

but there may be an issue.
In mathematical induction - if something is proved to be always true for a particular constant - then for an algebraic unknown k - and then for algebraic k+1 - well I was taught that that's a mathematical principle of induction to prove a general case.
Because if it works for k or k+1 ...  where k is a general algebraic unknown ...  then why wouldn't it work for any value of k?
You might have to have some restrictions ...
perhaps that k is nonzero - and positive - and not complex ...
in other words positive nonzero real number ...
but you've still proved the general case.
The article didn't seem to say that.
Is that a paradox?  Not necessarily because it refers to general inductive reasoning.  Mathematical isn't specified.