Chess will never be solved, here's why

We're getting to where I think you're making the signature mistake, as it were. You're seperating induction from deduction and treating them as different entities, in an absolute sense. Your entire argument rests on that.

But deduction is not deduction in isolation. Without premises, there's no syllogism. Without facts, there's no deduction, so where do facts come from? Not by deduction.

From observation, which is anecdotal and inferential. The same degree of uncertainty must be attached to the "facts" you use as premises for a syllogism as you insist on attaching to the idea that 1. d4 may lose for white. I can't personally see why you should think it may lose but it follows that you do think it, since the same argument can be used for 1. d4 as for 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6.

This means that your absolute distinction between deduction and inference is artificial and it doesn't hold. There is a distinction but it is not absolute, in the way that is necessary for your argument to stand.

I like food

Are you fat?

I mean, circumferantially challenged?

To be serious, deduction and induction are entirely distinct, and anyone who doesn't understand this needs to learn about it rather than broadcasting their ignorance.

See, that was trolling.  Please do report, it will eventually bear fruit, but only by drawing attention to how often you post things like "stupid child", so you might not like the result. 

Essentially, you've explained why you don't understand enough to be venturing your opinion, the way you do. I would like to thank you for your patience, though, because at least you gave me the chance to explain where I think you're going wrong but you aren't giving yourself a chance to understand what I'm talking about. I'm afraid it's like trying to explain something to a goat, or treacle. Not that I did ever try either but I have imagination.

One thing. Do you agree that we don't know that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force for white? That's the crux of it because, if you could manage to answer that clearly and honestly, then we would be able to see whether there's any consistency in what you're saying. If you can demonstrate consistency then certainly you would be letting yourself in for a bit of jollity at your expense but at least it would demonstrate intellectual integrity.

So can we be certain that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force, Elroch?

I think that it will be shown to be a draw.

     A couple of years reading comments on chess.com forums leads me to believe that a sizeable % of posters here believe they are laboring under the conditions you describe.

Don't mind me just getting my first word achievement

I'm certain of it but not the majority.

I'm hoping Elroch is going to pay ball and tell me whether in his belief we can know that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force for white.

I have him in a no-win predicament. I'd be very impressed if he can get out of it. On one hand, if 1. d4 certainly doesn't lose by force, then there's a complete lack of consistency in his arguments, to the extent that they fall apart, since he's depending on the idea that chess is not solved and therefore according to his own arguments, there must be doubt that we can be certain that 1. d4 doesn't lose.

On the other hand, the intellectually honest position is that 1. d4 may lose for white, by force. That's going to look a bit strange or even laughable. So I've won the argument but in which way is it won?

 Can I help?

Does that mean you'll believe anything?

     So relying on the judgement of GMs to eliminate broad categories of games/positions from consideration, thereby making the task easier, isn't actually relying on the judgement of GMs? 

     The consensus of expert opinion at one time was that the only opening moves (for either color) that could lead to success against best play was using one of the center pawns. It was once the consensus of expert opinion that K+R endings with 4 pawns vs 3, all on one side of the board, was a win for the 4 pawns (Capablanca had ground out a few such wins). Many times a GM will venture an opening or defense that their opponent has declared to be inferior just to prove them wrong. GMs disagree on many points, and even generally accepted opinions sometimes turn out to be incorrect in the long run. Using a possibly unreliable basis for the investigation may well yield unsatisfactory results.

     My own belief is that chess is a draw with best play. I also believe that 1.e4  e5  2.Ba6  is a certain loss. Beliefs are easy to come by--some believe humans will be raised from the dead by divine powers to live forever, some believe that human souls are just reincarnated into new bodies, some believe there is no such thing as a soul. Beliefs can be incompatible and not all can be true. Irrefutable proof is another matter.

^^^ I also thought I noticed an ephemeral inconsistency in his argumentation.

Oh I thought maybe answering you would be another achievement for you.

It wouldn't make sense to create such an achievement.

First post is easy.  The check occurs at the time of posting by user A and the lookup is on user A's account.

If you want to create an achievement for user A that gives them credit for getting their first reply, then you have to check user B's posts at the time they are made...that is, every single post any other user ever makes, essentially, just to determine if it happens to be the very first reply user A has ever gotten.  The lookup for each post by every user on the forum would therefore need to look up the post count of the user they are responding to, which is a lookup on another account and an extra call to the database/datastore.

It could be done anyway ...but on the backend, this would mean you want to, say, pull all the pertinent details of all the posters every time you open a new thread page, which adds its own overhead...but that could makes sense if you need all those details anyway for other purposes.

what