Chess will never be solved, here's why

     That's your answer? Those who don't accept your "superior" acuity must have a degree of insanity? Or do you mean I'm just angry? Imprecise language is a bad habit into which you too often lapse.

I can see your wry smile from over here...

@5304

"I did NOT say that that I am CERTAIN that  1.e4  e5  2.Ba6  is lost for white."
++ I am CERTAIN that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white.
White loses material and all other factors are equal. There is no compensation of any kind.

"Where has it been proved that that opening sequence leads to certain defeat?"
++ As proven before: it is a forced checkmate in 82.

"it is NOT an established fact, something not to be called into question."
++ It IS an established fact, not to be called into question indeed.

"You only need notice that there more than 5000 posts here to see that these points ARE in dispute." ++ Some trolls dispute even the light of day, apparently for the fun of it.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and thus is NOT optimal play by both opponents.
Hence it has no place in solving chess.

Chess can be solved in 5 years, but not if people make it a million times more complicated,
then it takes 5 million years, as they like it.

Well, they might be a bit thick but it's nothing to so with that. It's your seemingly uncontrollable bouts of anger, that erupt for no reason external to yourself. Your eruption last night made me suspect it was fuelled by drink, since it seemed to be based on your lack of understanding of a simple phrase. Since you're normally ok at deciphering what something like "personally certain" means, I assumed you'd been drinking, although that wouldn't necessarily explain the anger itself. If it isn't that then something else. I don't think most people object to being accurately quoted, if its something they already made clear in public and so your reaction to it seemed completely off-beam. Do you see tygxc reacting violently because I also quoted him as being certain that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white? Or RemovedUsername? She made herself as clear as you did.

No no, deep concern!
OK there was a wry smile then.

  <<<I did NOT say that that I am CERTAIN that  1.e4  e5  2.Ba6  is lost for white.>>>

Funnily enough, although you did, I can no longer find the post to that effect. How strange.

Unfortunately your proof in #5308 is clearly flawed. Black can't checkmate and lose.

It should be:

You probably overlooked the fact that 3...Ke7 is a perfect move. You need to remember that any move in a losing position is perfect.

Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

Although the chess.com engine prefers Nxa6, I'm pretty sure that black wins quicker after 2. ...ba and therefore that is the stronger capture for black.

@5312
3...Ke7?? is a blunder, turns a won position into a lost position.

Ke7 is very probably a blunder, except technically in the unlikely (but not logically impossible) case that the Ba6 sacrifice is winning. Even I find it difficult to be pedantic about this, but I am epistemologically obliged to be.

@5316
That is not probable, it is sure. After 2 Ba6? white loses by force: checkmate in 82.
3 Qh5 is not worse than 3 Nf3: both moves lose.
3...Ke7?? is a sure blunder or double error: turns the won position into a lost position.
Epistemologically is a pedantic word for trolling.

You are sure. People are sure about many things, some of which are not true (including many that are reasonable but where they are later surprised).

The proposition itself is agnostic and, while an excellent hypothesis, unproven.

You are self-mocking by stating that it is a "checkmate in 82".

In your personal interpretation of epistemological obligation. If it is your belief that there's genuine doubt about the outcome of 2. Ba6, then of course it follows.

We'll find out when @tygxc solves chess.

Um, sorry scratch that - he's not going to solve that bit.

In any case, even in the hypothetical unreality that 2. Ba6 is winning for white, the Ke7 move would still be a blunder, since no-one would find the win. Possibly not even the strongest computer.

I think that logically ba should win quicker for black than Nxa6 because it opens a file and a diagonal and the Nb8 remains nearer the centre. When I played it through against the onboard engine, I captured with the pawn.

You overlooked it again.

Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

But quicker is not perfecter.

I found it.