Chess will never be solved, here's why

That isn't a deductive argument and you're employing different criteria from Elroch's. I'm not saying that you're wrong that chess is a draw but you have not proven it to Elroch's satisfaction because what you have given is not a deductive proof and there's nothing that can make it so.

Your 1a) is fully reasonable but still opinion.
1b) is incorrect, so far as proof goes. One reason is that "50" is clearly an arbitary number but again, it's opinion and is much weaker than 1a). It may be a corollary of 1a).
1c) is corroborative evidence but in no way conclusive if it stands alone.
1d) A computer playing itself isn't a proper test, AT ALL. In fact I think that could be held as evidence that chess is a win.
1e) strongly confirms the assumption that chess is a draw but it remains an assumption.
1f)) I agree with that. It's evidence that chess ought to be drawn from a theoretical point of view but it's still opinion.

2. "Thus" here is therefore not so in the deductive sense.
3. Well, that's my opinion too but it's your opinion and also my opinion. Therefore, your  use of "therefore" cannot be part of a deductive argument. It merely reflects the conclusion we draw from our opinions, which is that chess is definitely drawn with best play. It still isn't the proof which Elroch demands. I personally think he's mistaken to demand it, if such a proof is impossible, which I believe it is. But it's still his prerogative to remain agnostic.

Thankyou. I believe I used an arithmetical approach at the time: but it was decades ago and I can't remember exactly what the thought processes were. Maybe that tempo is logically half a ply, when applied to white's opening advantage of the move.

For instance, in the giving of odds, I believe the odds "pawn and move" was ambiguous; referring possibly to two different things.

1 (b) has also already been pointed out to be false (I can't recall by whom) both because:

• it was not true that there were no wins without forced openings - rather there were not many
• there are still many draws with forced openings

Even if one doesn't fully understand what it means because one doesn't know what "a forced opening" is a label for, it might still be clear that it cannot be part of a deductive argument.

@5963
About 1b TCEC: of the 50 imposed slightly unbalanced openings:
19 worked as intended: a win and a draw
22 lead to two draws: not unbalanced enough
9 lead to a win and a loss: too unbalanced

If they would not impose unbalanced openings, they would have all draws.

It isn't circular logic, because the logic is exactly identical to "how do you know you will hurt yourself by jumping off a 300 foot cliff onto sharp rocks below?"

This isn't logic....it's instinct. Even animals have it. They don't have to apply logic to sense danger, and if you're looking 300' down at sharp rocks, it's not logic that's scaring you....it's the self preservation instinct, in a different part of your brain. 

On the other hand, even a non-logician like me could prove that chess is a draw if one of the givens is "Chess is a draw". 

@5966
"prove that chess is a draw if one of the givens is "Chess is a draw". "
++ No. Chess is a draw follows from 6 pieces of evidence:

1. Expert opinions of World Champions.
2. TCEC: 63 draws in 100 games despite imposed slightly unbalanced openings
3. ICCF WC: 136 games = 127 draws + 6 white wins + 3 black wins
4. AlphaZero autoplay: 97.7% draws, more with more time / move, even if stalemate = win
5. Human top matches and tournaments with more draws and more at higher ratings
6. A tempo up in the initial position is not enough to win. A pawn can queen, a tempo cannot.

This is clearly some new meaning of the word "follows" with which I am not familiar.  Is it a synonym of "transubstantiates"?

@5968
to follow = to result from

So, cause and effect?  Computers drawing 63 out of 100 games causes the result to become a draw?

To be frank, your repetitive nonsense is getting boring.

@5960

Wait......so "follows" means "to result from"?   So "chess is a draw" results from the opinions of world champions?   What if there were no tournaments and no world champions? Would this mean chess was not a draw? What if chess were just invented and all you had to go on was the rules and none of your 6 points existed? Would this change your belief about chess being a draw?

Yes, you can call it instinct if you wish, although I think it's learned. I also think that instinct, in its fullest sense, can be learned. It needn't be innate.

@5971
"What if chess were just invented and all you had to go on was the rules and none of your 6 points existed?" ++ Then we would not know. In the previous century Rauzer believed 1 e4 wins and Berliner believed 1 d4 wins. Thanks to all the accumulated evidence from humans and computers we now know chess is a draw.

If chess were just invented and I hadn't played any games, I might assume it is probably a draw by best play by looking at the rules, the innate complexity and the symmetricality of the layout but I couldn't know it.

I think people underestimate the effect that hundreds of thousands of top class players have imposed, when they analyse the opening position to the best of their ability. I fully believe that their combined efforts is sufficient to fully confirm my belief that it's drawn by best play. Computers haven't done anything to alter that impression. Since I don't think that chess ever CAN be fully solved, where anything approaching a strong solution is implied, I think therefore that we do know it's drawn to a similar degree of certainty to our certainty that death would ensue from jumping off a 300 foot cliff onto sharp rocks below. We can consider ourselves as knowing that. Note that if we land by chance on an albatross's back on the way down, tthen we didn't jump onto the sharp rocks from 300 feet.

@tygxc "knows" chess is a draw.

Steinitz "knew" he could beat God even if he gave him pawn and move.

"Knowing" is a state of mind, NOT a state of fact.

Ah, good try but that's mistaken, because the word "know" diverges in meaning. English is a flexible and often ambiguous language. They accept the belief that astrology works in order to facilitate their competence in using astrology to do whatever it is they try do with it. Their assumed competence comes along with the belief that it works and it isn't founded on such incontrovertible evidence as jumping off a 300 foot cliff onto sharp rocks is. Or knowing chess is drawn, which I submit is knowledge that can never, ever, be improved upon by any means we will have at our disposal, which is why I call it knowledge in the most direct sense of the word.

Yes good, we're agreed.

All draws, just like the second batch of games I posted, which start from a theoretically won position.

I suppose you would say the first batch, again from a theoretically won position is unbalanced because only eleven of the twelve were drawn.

Incidentally when are you going to post your calculations to determine the theoretical results of those positions and the number of errors in the games. If you do that we can all talk about sensible things.

@5975
"Knowing is a state of mind, NOT a state of fact."
++ Believing is a state of mind, knowing is objective.

Knowledge = understanding gained by actual experience; range of information;
clear perception of truth; something learned and kept in the mind.

Chess is a draw results inductively from millions of human and engine games and deductively from equal material and position in the initial position and from 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn being unable to queen.

This peer reviewed paper has knowledge in its title:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09259 

@5974

I think people underestimate the effect that hundreds of thousands of top class players have imposed, when they analyse the opening position to the best of their ability. I fully believe that their combined efforts is sufficient to fully confirm my belief that it's drawn by best play. 

I accept that you "fully believe..." but I do not accept that all these top class players have any effect on the solvability of the game, nor that their opinions do anything other than convince other humans. When chess was invented and the rules were agreed on, at that moment it was either solvable or not. No human knew then whether it was solvable, and despite the strong opinions that exist, we are debating whether any human knows now.