Chess will never be solved, here's why

It is theoretically won. I know that. You may not.

If it's not your best play that means you definitely don't know that it's theoretically won. (But neither does MC.)

That's deductively incorrect, I'm afraid. There's no reason to assume that.

Lol, even here you are not 100% sure.  Thus, "theoretically".  You can't even hold up to your own absolute statements.

It's so simple.  You aren't sure, so stop saying you are 100% sure.  Nobody would have an issue.  But you can't.  You've made your declaration and the whole world cannot stop you, even though *your own mind qualifies the statement for you* . 

I cannot imagine living 70+ years inside your head, but you have my sympathy.

Nobody is claiming it should not be a win for black.  Stop deflecting.

Firstly, they seem to be claiming that. Don't tell me what to think. I only follow what people are implying.

Secondly, can any of you possibly attempt to be interesting? It's like talking to very dull schoolchildren. If none of you can be intelligent, try being less boring.

You can only know it's theoretically won if you can win it against any opposition, unless you have devised an ultra weak solution, which would be, as Euclid might say, in your case, absurd. There is no better play than that, yours or anybody else's. So if it's not your best play, in particular, it follows you don't know it's theoretically won.

Nobody implied anything, that's your contorted defense mechanisms in operation.

Feigned boredom while posting frequently is another defense mechanism.

I'm not telling you what to think, just how to think more accurately.  That will probably send you into apoplexy, but...

I'm very aware of the games people like you try to play when you can't win an argument by normal means.

All we have is two or three immature people who are lousy at chess, claiming that I can't know that an obviously won position is won. At least you could attempt to be interesting or entertaining, since there's no content worth noting.

Feigning boredom? What a complete tool.

OK get lost. Just a couple of trolls.

Same old, same old.  Can't make an argument without resorting to namecalling.

@4136
We are speaking about a pawn, a bishop, or a tempo in the initial position.

The initial position is a draw. White is a tempo up. You cannot queen a tempo.
1 e4 b5 is a white win. White is a pawn up, queens it, and checkmates.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a black win. Black is up a bishop, trades it for a pawn, queens it, checkmates.

There is more logic in chess.
1 a4 does not accomplish as much as 1 e4 or 1 d4.
Thus once 1 e4 and 1 d4 are proven draws, then it sure that 1 a4 cannot win either.
1 Nh3 does not accomplish as much as 1 Nf3.
Thus once 1 Nf3 is proven a draw, then it is sure that 1 Nh3 cannot win either.

The same people who imply 1 a4 wins for white imply 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 draws for black. Strange.

All good rules of thumb.

I believe you genuinely don't understand the difference between:

"The same people who imply 1 a4 wins for white imply 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 draws for black"

and (the truth)

"The same people who acknowledge that it has not been proven that 1 a4 doesn't win for white also acknowledge correctly that it hasn't been proven that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 draws for white".

It is also clear that you do not understand the difference between an excellent bet and proven certainty (of the type achieved in the solution of checkers).

@4148
"Can you win from the position against any opposition?
If so you can win against SF15 (which is also far from being a strong player"
++ We are talking about the game theoretic value of the position.
Whether some forum contributor can or cannot achieve the game-theoretic value against Magnus Carlsen or Stockfish is completely irrelevant.

@4160
"You can only know it's theoretically won if you can win it against any opposition"
++ No that is false. An ultra-weak solution is possible without a weak solution,
just like a weak solution is possible without a strong solution.

Dirty play, revealing poor character.

You have no excuse for misrepresenting what @Optimissed [EDIT: it was @MARattigan] said by deleting the next part of his sentence, which said "unless you have devised an ultra weak solution..." I reject the possibility that your reading skills are poor enough to make this a mistake. 

@4167

"you do not understand the difference between an excellent bet and proven certainty
(of the type achieved in the solution of checkers)."
++ As said before: some things are known to be true, though not yet formally proven.
Yes, Checkers and Losing Chess have been weakly solved, Chess not yet.
I am not betting in any way.
Look at this scientific paper. It says knowledge, not bets.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf

Moreover it starts with no other human input but the Laws of Chess and it only calculates, i.e. performs boolean operations i.e. logic, so it produces theorems from axioms: the Laws of Chess.

This scientific paper in 5.2 p. 303 explicitly approves the use of knowledge in solving games
"Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based
methods in game-solving programs."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527 

#4171
There are between 10^29241 and 10^34082 possible chess games.
https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html

However, there are only 10^44 legal chess positions
https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking

Of which only 10^17 i.e. 100 million billion positions are sensible, reachable, and relevant.

Cloud engines can calculate a billion chess positions per second.
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis

In a year there are 365.25 * 24 * 3600 = 32 million seconds

3 Cloud engines can weakly solve chess in 5 years.

Just like the late GM Sveshnikov said:
'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.'

Human beings will never go into space or walk on the moon either.

Thankyou for your intervention but I don't think that was my post, although it was MAR writing about something I had written.

I have no idea really, why anyone takes the posts of tygxc, MAR or btickler seriously. Now they're still arguing that it's impossible to know that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 is lost for white.

I wonder what it would take for them to accept that it's a forced loss. Some kind of greater authority, maybe. Meanwhile they like to tell other people what they can or cannot think and should and shouldn't think too. What I see is people who can't play chess and shouldn't be commenting on it. tygxc is different. I suspect he is or has been a good player. The inability to understand digital chess analysis probably comes from a recollection of and fixation upon past glories.

I'm not bothered about misrepresentation, because it should be clear to anyone who counts that he's capable of good and useful comments, although not on the subject under discussion here. The other two are a bit past their sell-by dates as well. 

Note the distinct lack of a supporting link in the drop from 10^44 to 10^17 ...