Chess will never be solved, here's why

The last point is definite. I spent 10 to 15 minutes playing that position against the chess.com engine and making one substandard move for black early on. I played Bd6 with the d pawn on d7 or some such. I concluded that the other factors are NOT equal but that black is positionally better and a whole piece up. There is no question about it at all and those who think it may not be a win have something wrong with their playing ability. I took the Ba6 with the b pawn, because that is the natural move: to open up lines as black, quickly. It's stronger because the knight is nearer the centre and a file and a diagonal are opened. It is just as stupid to say that it may not win for black as it is to say that we don't know definitively that 1. d4 does not lose by force for white. The two examples are completely equivalent to one-another since chess is not yet formally solved. Some people want to have the argument both ways. Lack of logical ability.

Beg your pardon?

tygxc won't reply to me. He only replies to his intellectial equals, such as Elroch and MAR.

     Here we are again at the crux of the disagreement. This method of solving chess relies on using the judgement of GMs or engines that are admittedly imperfect to determine which elements of the game are important and which are irrelevant. Even getting consensus among GMs on which opening lines are best is impossible--witness the many times we see players choose a line that their opponent has declared to be inferior, just to prove them wrong. And of course any engines used would have been surpassed by new developments before the study could be completed, casting doubt on the entire process.

     I continue to believe that only a brute-force computation of all possibilities can be entirely reliable. I also believe that such a task is impractical at present, but likely doable at some future time.

I, for one, understand your preference but would respectfully suggest that a brute force analysis of the entirety of chess is impossible for the forseeable future. Therefore it seems that, after a brief flirtation with the idea of perfection as embodied in more and more powerful computers, we're once more thrown back on our own resources. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to claim that a lost position, such as 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6, is well and truly lost.

dang u right

     The first thing you need to accomplish a task is the tools and materials needed for it. As we both agree that the foolproof solution is presently unavailable, we can speculate and give our best opinions, but best guesses so often prove to be incorrect in the long run that that any quick solution at which we might arrive must remain doubtful.

You can take that point of view regarding whether we exist in the first place or whether we're merely figments of our own imaginations.

Too much deference is being given to the views of those like Elroch, who are essentially nihilists, who believe that only deduction suffices, even though there's nothing to deduce from, which isn't suspect in one way or another. Out of the window with them, basically.

LeelaZero's billion parameters for evaluating everything about a position (trivially including the material and anything you might include in "all other factors"  (plus a million times more) provides it with enormously more testable understanding about this but does not provide it with certainty.  A passable human player like yourself being certain about this is an example of your poorer judgement versus an AI that is over 1000 points stronger.

Just look at this nonsense. I've already explained to him that non-certainty is built into a machine like Leela. It can't do otherwise. Doesn't take a blind bit of notice.

Half your posts are telling people how intelligent you are and half are telling people you can't understand things. Doesn't seem to be any consistency. 

A lot of people here don't understand how to argue for their opinions. Very often they don't know that they should be arguing for their opinions because they seem to think that what they think they've learned is fact. Consequently they just announce it as fact but when asked to support it, they don't know how to do so. Or they can't be bothered. It becomes a bit annoying to be constantly told I'm wrong because they say so. I sometimes just tell people they're a bit stupid. I think it's fair enough when they make personal comments, as they do. It isn't as easy as you might imagine being cleverer than nearly everyone else in an environment where a lot of people's egos are at stake and there are always those who turn it around and start projecting.

There's something about the people commenting on threads like this. Most people on the site are fine. They don't have anything against others and don't try to pretend they're something they're not. But just look at the constant argument you're having with tygxc. Round and round in circles. He doesn't seem to be able to learn anything but neither do you, very fast, and you've definitely always been a troll, although a fairly good natured one. Elroch and btickler both learn slowly but it seems to take them centuries.

Oh and where did I just tell someone I didn't understand something? I was telling Elroch that he doesn't understand something. You should try to be more original.

Not much of what you post is worth a reply.

What you mean is that you don't understand much because you're lazy and other things which we needn't go into. If you had a bit of intelligence and could actually use it, your reaction would be different. Your reaction being what it is makes a statement about you, not about anything else.

Indeed you were. That was where you told everyone you didn't understand what he'd posted. 

You swap repetitive arguments constantly with ty because that's your level.

Because it was a bad argument.

Show me you're not a troll.

Show me that you have some intelligence and can use it.