Chess will never be solved, here's why

Anyway, btickler, one thing I and a lot of players who are much stronger than you agree with each other about is that we know chess is a draw, just like we know the sun will rise tomorrow, even though we can't prove that it will.

Haikauikaiikiu or whatever is similar to you. All mouth but scared to criticise the short essay you wrongly called "circular logic".

Nf3 and g3 would also be a valid solution

You can't debate your way out of paper bag.  Never have been able to in all my time here.  That's why you have to rely on talking up your own intellect and claiming you are winning arguments, instead of actually ever doing it.  

Moving on...

Yet another "and another thing" post from you.  It's becoming a trend.  Did you really just add another reply to the already replied-to post just to parrot Tygxc's previous comment and then make an oh-so-close to racist comment about another poster?  

When you get these "and another thing" impulses, I would sit on them and look for a better move.

Called by many the best debater in the English language on Facebook and I can't debate.

Discussion and debate is pointless, when there are those who're so confident and yet so dumb, they can never distinguish when their opponent makes a good point. You don't understand the scientific principle that evidence comes first. Sometimes it isn't possible to reach a deductive conclusion, which requires premises. This is such a case and so we go on the available evidence. There's zero evidence pointing to a win. All the evidence points to a draw. If you can't draw a useful conclusion from that, you are trapped inside your own paper bag.

It's interesting how narcissists say things like that and expect people to believe them.

btickler, for when you get back to me with your usual disparaging, irrelevant nonsense, and you usually wait a while so I'm offline and can't reply. Well, try to come up with something substantial. Heaven knows, asking tygxc for academic papers is asking for substantial enough things and you should know very well, it generally wouldn't be considered worth a paper on it. That's why you ask for it. Yet all there ever is from you is passive-aggression and dodgy rhetoric.

You need to think about evidence, man. That's all there is. Just endless evidence for a draw and a few "what-ifs" from weak chess players who think "maybe if there's a game for 1500 moves, it could be a win". Now, why should that be a win any more than one of 45 moves? Any reason?

Nope.

Yes, you do. You automatically think you're cleverer than anyone else and yet you're unaware of your lack of ability in anything but your speciality of statistics. I know you very well. You even led me and others to believe you had a PhD for several years, until I actually looked at you in real life.

Lol, I see...so if I respond while you are offline, that is me avoiding facing you?  It couldn't possibly just be that we are on different continents 8-9 hours apart? 

Your distorted narrative is pretty much all you seem to have in life.  You cling to it like a man dangling from a cliff.

If you cannot understand why a forced win might be longer than other wins, then you really have no business commenting on this thread.  It's abundantly clear that if white can force a win, it will be arduous and hard-fought, or it would have already been discovered long ago.  Surely this basic logic cannot escape even you.

Lol, more narrative.  Calling yourself the best debater in the English language on Facebook is like calling yourself the world's top hand model at a gardener's convention.

I knew someone like you once, he was a born-again Christian, and he claimed that he used to be "one of the top 10 D&D dungeon masters in the world" (a category there is no measure or standard for whatsoever), but then one day his bible fell off the table and landed open to "though shalt not suffer a witch to live".  So, he gave it up and became the Lord's instrument...he was convinced he was chosen by God in preparation for The Rapture, which he thought imminent (this was 1989).

This type of grandiose imagination about oneself is very reminiscent of your outlook...the 1 in a million IQ claims, the certainty that you are winning arguments you have given no support/backing for, the constant "I'm the smartest one here, that's why" protestations, the dismissal of whole branches of science, the belief that you have supernatural abilities...

It's surreal and indicative of a level of denial that is beyond unhealthy.

     Well, it had been nice for a couple of days, but now it's back to the same old personal bickering.

It's not personal, it's in public.  If it were personal, I would not be bothering to engage since it's not worth my time to discuss anything one on one with the likes of Optimissed.

If you don't enjoy these exchanges, might I recommend that you report the poster that started the exchange...

Quite. That's because they aren't capable of proper debate.

People who are incapable of winning arguments without asking tygxc to cite academic papers or without calling others "narcissistic" always make their discussions personal, when they're incapable of winning them by any other means. That's because they are not interested in fair and honest discussions but in winning and in being seen by others to be winning. They always make personal attacks on those who can out-manoeuvre them, to try to discredit them. tygxc's arguments have all been fine except for the fly in the ointment .... the belief that chess can be solved in five years. But really that's immaterial, because it doesn't affect our understanding of the more important ideas.

There's no practical problem in believing that chess may be a win and my understanding is that all it reflects is a lack of accurate judgement in a completely unimportant matter.

The more insidious thing is that this is actually a political matter because it consists of some people telling others what they may think and what they may know, because they falsely pretend to understand what knowledge is and how people attain it.

So they think they have moral authority over people's beliefs, although they pretend that what they are exercising is intellectual authority. It's an extension of the idea of agnosticism, where some people wrongly interpret it as being *incorrect* to believe that something, whatever it is, doesn't exist or does exist. They're not only telling others what they are allowed to think; they're also wrong and they're wrong because they're ignorant about how humans know things and believe things.

I tried three times to get them talking on that subject and to recognise that I wrote a short essay on the subject. In view of their refusal to address it, they have lost this argument and they have no moral authority remaining. They never had any intellectual authority, which was always a mirage.

Maybe "they" (and everybody else it seems) are not responding to your essay because it is philosophical fluff without real content in a scientific discussion.  

I'll leave the rest of your delusions alone.

#3795
"Produce one paper." ++ Maybe this one
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf 
Or
Black is OK! - GM Adorjan

Or "Soon all openings will be given exact scores, and if the variant is correct, it will lead to a technical endgame in which a draw will be achieved with accurate defense." - GM Sveshnikov, 65+ World Champion, MSc. Eng.

"Not a chess player" ++ A Draughts or Go player is not qualified.

"not a math hobbyist" ++ Lasker held a PhD. in mathematics.

"a Stockfish developer" ++ Unqualified: it is a chess question, not a programming issue

"Hans Berliner" ++ Tricky: Berliner believed 1 d4 wins for white and Rauzer believed 1 e4 wins for white. Those were the only two dissident voices.

#3812
"Called by many the best debater in the English language on Facebook"
++ They should have an elo rating for that.

#3794
"Then prove it."
++ See the last completed ICCF World Championship: 50 days per 10 moves, engines allowed
June 20, 2019 to June 1, 2022, 17 players round robin
https://iccf.com/event?id=79897

136 games, 121 draw, 15 decisive games.
If chess is a draw then that means:
119 drawn games with 0 error
15 decisive games with 1 error, usually the last move
2 drawn games with 2 errors
If chess were a white win or a black win, then there is no way to explain this.