Chess will never be solved, here's why

Produce one paper.  Not a chess player, not a math hobbyist, but at the very least a Stockfish developer or the like.  Hans Berliner would do.

If you can produce *one*, then we can tackle "many".

Interesting article that may have bearing on this topic somewhere down the line...

https://news.yahoo.com/googles-quantum-supremacy-usurped-researchers-183622602.html

Apparently Google's quantum supremacy claim is not so supreme.  Not that it ever amounted to much, since quantum supremacy was defined as quantum computers being able to do a single task faster than traditional computers, which is more like "quantum entry-level achievement".

I said I was not going to argue with you for today, but you really amuse me. What reference and what source? That page gives a lot of sources, like (green enphases mine):

Explanatory note 2: Physicist John C. Baez cautions, "there's no way to understand the interpretation of quantum mechanics without also being able to solve quantum mechanics problems – to understand the theory, you need to be able to use it (and vice versa)"

Reference 20: Landau, L.D.; Lifschitz, E.M. (1977). Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory. Vol. 3 (3rd ed.). Pergamon Press. 

etc.

Sometimes a physicist mentions that QM, SR and GR are theories, other times s/he does not. As usual, you deliberately make use of "cherry picking".

I'm afraid they considered it so trivial and obvious that by coincidence, they all wrote it on toilet paper and flushed it away. Seriously, you really should not pose as an intellectual and ask people to produce "papers" when they are irrelevant. You'll just get what you asked for.

Seriously, you need to address the short essay I wrote on how people can know things. Then attempt to stand back and work out how it applies to you.

I can give you a hint. Do you understand what deduction is? If you understand it, then on what does it depend? And what has mankind always done, when something trivial needs to be considered, to determine whether it's reliable?

I rather agree.

I get that sometimes you think yourself clever in these retorts, but no.  Tygxc made a ridiculous claim, one that is easily refuted by asking for evidence.  You, on the other hand, are just desperate to achieve the appearance of having bested me.  It's not going to happen.

Apart from the fact I'm obviously a better debater than you?

You really ought not to ask people for academic papers. Honestly, it makes you look desperate because it's just so naïve-cliché-ten-years-ago. Next you'll be telling people you'll be looking forward to when they win their Nobel Prize.

That's very kind. Thankyou very much. Frazy much be quite a compliment in your language.

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.