Chess will never be solved, here's why

I think I can honestly say I doubt if I'd win it as Black even against Stockfish. I'd put money on losing it against a 32 man tablebase if there were such a thing. 

Lasker used to say its a rook.  A rook down.  Not a piece.
There is considerable rationale in not including Ba6 in 'weakly' solutions.
But knocking out 1) a4 ... or any of the 20 white first moves at all - is just too intensely suspect.
But don't worry !   As I said - you've been getting control of the forum.
And for 3000 posts now !
Simply by refusing to cave in !   

#3034
"I think I can honestly say I doubt if I'd win it as Black even against Stockfish. I'd put money on losing it against a 32 man tablebase if there were such a thing. "

++ Yes, I guess that is true. However, we are not talking about practical play against Stockfish here with the inherent human errors, but rather about weakly solving chess. I.e. both entities commanding the white and the black pieces are presumed to play optimal moves.
Stockfish should win this against itself or against any present or future engine, or against the postulated 32-men table base. An ICCF grandmaster should win this against the postulated 32-men table base. In practice ICCF grandmasters resign when they lose a pawn without compensation. There is also no doubt at all that the postulated 32-men table base would list the entry 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 as black checkmates in X moves, presumably with X < 50.

"Stockfish should win this against itself"

Heyyyy !!!   That's interesting !
What odds does a computer have to give itself ... to beat itself ??
A subject in itself !
But - tainted by Stockfish's pathetic findings of wins in obviously drawing situations.

#3035
"Lasker used to say its a rook."
++ Where did Lasker say that? A rook is enough to win, a piece is enough to win, a pawn is enough to win.
"The winning of a pawn among good players of even strength often means the winning of the game." - Capablanca
"An endgame with an extra pawn is won, the plan is to queen the pawn;
an endgame with an extra piece is won, the plan is to trade the piece for a pawn." - Capablanca

A pawn is Very Often not enough to win.
And a knight or bishop up often fails to win.
A rook is somewhat different.
Part of the theory of that is that if everything else is exchanged - the rook triumphs.  Its the Minimum Mating Material.
mmm  Rook up !!!

(could get a series of pingpong posts now where @tygxc actually knows what I'm talking about - but there's a kind of 'argument' about things we actually agree on.  Even though he's likely to maintain otherwise.
I think he does that all the time.   
But its okay)

Analogy:  You're walking through a particular part of town - and you walk by some busy tennis courts with many people playing ...
and you hear those volleys of Bop-bop-bop ... not quite like popcorn ...
has its own 'tennis' quality 

#3039
"A pawn is Very Often not enough to win."
++ Among weak players or if there is compensation yes, but generally a pawn is enough to win.
"A pawn is a pawn" - Fischer
One example is the King's Gambit 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3.
"It loses by force" - Fischer
"I could not find a way for white to equalise" - Kramnik
This was confirmed by AlphaZero: see figure 4 (d) on page 10.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf 

That is also the reason why most gambits have vanished from top grandmaster play.
Grandmasters go though a lot of trouble and accept all kinds of cramped positions just to win a pawn. Here is an example: Carlsen gambits a pawn and almost loses.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2122755 

In weakly solving chess I would not care to handle e.g. Danish Gambit.

Euler now mentioned by @Elroch.
Euler was a great Swiss mathematician.
His equation e to the (i x pi) = -1 has been considered by some to be the most beautiful equation in all of math.  
Its called 'Euler's identity'.
Unfortunately - I have no easy way to type the equation in proper algebraic format.  
e is the base of natural logarithms.
i is the square root of minus one and is the base of complex numbers - if I recall it right.  It was called j when I studied it back then.
pi is of course ...  a transcendental number like e but much better known to the public than 'e'.
Volume of pizza pie with thickness 'a' and radius z ...
Pi x rsquared x a = Pi x z x z x a.  Which algebraically can be written
'Pizza'.  

#3041
"There is a set of first moves that win, a set that draw and a set that lose"
++ Yes, that is true. The set of first white moves that win is conjectured to be empty. The set of white first moves that lose may be empty. That leaves all 20 first white moves in the same subset of moves that draw. However, by human logic per Capablanca no move accomplishes as much as 1 e4 or 1 d4. Thus if 1 e4 and 1 d4 are proven to be in the set of moves that draw, then as a corollary 1 a4 cannot be in the set that wins.
If 1 e4 and 1 d4 are proven not in the set of moves that win, then the logically inferior moves like 1 a4 are not in that set either and the set of winning first white moves is empty as conjectured.

#3041
"But note also that chess is not mathematics. "
++ Chess is a game, but game theory is a branch of mathematics and thus solving chess is mathematics.
Maybe the analogon of Capablanca vs. AlphaZero would be Euler vs. Appel & Haken.
Appel & Haken used a computer to prove the Four Color Theorem, that is not more reliable than the proofs of Euler without computer. When Appel & Haken finally had proven the Four Color Theorem (longtime known to be true, but not yet proven), many mathematicians doubted the validity of a computer proof.

Since you missed this, I will post it again.

To weakly solve chess, the game-theoretic value of the game and a strategy to achieve that value must be determined. Being 100% sure of something without proof means that thing is considered an axiom. Using axioms like "the game-theoretic value of the game is a draw" and "this strategy is superior over that other" to prove in fact the axioms themselves, is a fallacy known as "begging the question". Excluding "inferior" strategies makes actually impossible to falsify the assumption of their inferiority.

Many posts ago you said:

I asked if you can provide papers supporting this statement, because we use in general only two values of truth: true and false. Are you sure you did not mistake "provability" for "probability", reading something about fuzzy logic? If that statement was true, a proof could not be true at a higher degree, compared to a knowledge already 100% true.

That calculation is flawed for "begging the question" and other reasons, but you refuse to address its many problems.

Projection again.

 "Using axioms like "the game-theoretic value of the game is a draw" and "this strategy is superior over that other" to prove in fact the axioms themselves, is a fallacy known as "begging the question"."
I think its also called circular reasoning.  And its a form of illogic.
@Haiaku is correct as usual. 
But @tygxc will 'get away with it' in a double-edged sense.
He won't concede anything - but continues to be exposed.

@tygxc is a very good chess player.  
In conversations that resemble chess games ... a square and what's on it (issue in the conversation) can be contested - or conceded - or ... simply shift activity to another square.
Each square can be considered to be a kind of game in itself.
So anytime @tygxc looks like he might be 'in trouble' on a particular square ...  he can simply shift his responses slightly. 
The other person 'waits' for a response but there isn't one.
So the closest @tygxc comes to concession - is silence.
What is very paradoxical about this though - is he is able to do this quite civilly.
More about that in a minute - but first:
we got this a few pages ago:

Various ideas:
1) 'how to debate' can be typed on google search
2) 'debate' is a broadly-used term on the website. 
There are few if any conversations on this website that are like proper debates in debating societies in Universities.
Nor even approaching the organization in political debates on TV between politicians running against each other for election to high political office.
In a 'true' debate you might even see the two sides switch positions.
Each 'team' will take the opposite position they took in the first debate and then the debate happens a second time.  But differently.
A panel that does not include any member of the two debate teams will vote on a 'winner' of each debate.  Plus maybe 'grade' the teams.
That panel also moderates.  Applies rules.  Maintains decorum and so on.

///////////////////////////
Again:

That post was addressed to @tygxc - not 'somebody'.
Point:  It seems that @tygxc has not responded to @Haiaku 's reminder of providing a 'paper'.  
If anybody tries to do @tygxc 's answering For him ...
after the conversation had already 'converged' on @Haiaku 's reminder to @tygxc ...
well the result of that is definitely more 'circles' because it greatly enhances @tygxc 's opportunity to sidestep the reminder.  Or obfuscates it.
But - extra ironic ...  interference by that third person - is from that same third person who bitterly complains about 'circles'.  

Again:  from @Haiaku to @tygxc 

Has there been any indication here that @tygxc has read that response 'paper' and responded to that reminder?
Just repeating den Herik's definition over and over is 'dodging'.
@tygxc 'interpreted' den Herik's definition.

But @tygxc has no compelling obligation to consider the other paper provided.
Even in a proper debating society in a University - he would not have to do so.
Nor in a court of law in front of a jury.
He might have to acknowledge official 'receipt' of the paper -
which is called 'Discovery' I believe ...
or - has to indicate whether he accepts or objects to 'Exhibit A' or whatever.

but in jurisdictions - a lawyer is not directly compelled to read evidence.
He could lose business - get his reputation hurt ...  but would any judge anywhere have grounds to find him in contempt or get him disbarred ?
Extent of obligation: 
"Your Honor - I acknowledge to the Court that Defense has no objection to Exhibit A."
He then can ignore Exhibit A completely if he chooses.

I think that someone has accused you of projecting. Probably many people have, because when you're an inadequate person, with no real sense of personal pride and a fundamental dishonesty because of that, you will tend to accuse others of having your own weaknesses. So it becomes a handy weapon, because when a person is like you, sticking your nose in where it isn't wanted and generally being unpleasant, you aren't liked. So there will be a tendency to project that onto others. Because you've seen the truth, when others have told you that you're projecting, and it's hurt you, you'll try to do that to others, completely by reflex. It's one of the many tactics that people like you tend to use, to try to salvage some degree of false pride. You do it over and over and it makes you look completely pathetic. You shouldn't do it. You'll never have any real self-respect.

Here's another circular assertion from @tygxc 
From post #177 - way back in January:  Here:  https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=9#comment-67001537

"Checkers was solved by only the square root of the number of legal positions. Hence it is plausible to apply the square root in chess too to account for all positions rendered irrelevant."
No its Not.  Nice try though.  
How many of these has he made? 
Maybe they can all be summarized in one list.

'adjective' yes. 
But the constant and consistent projection from the individual is remarkable. 
Every time he does something - its 'the other person doing it'. 
Close to 100% of the time.  He'll even project his projecting too.   
But that's part of chronic projection though. 
If he admits it - how can he continue?
It might even extend to his trying to deter use of the word.
One is not to say it ? 
And 'is not to disagree with him nor criticize any post he makes'? 
A kind of 'emperor has no clothes but you mustn't say it' situation.