Chess will never be solved, here's why

I don't think you should go on and on about mental infirmities in others. Talking of patterns, it can only draw attention to yourself, even if some don't see the pattern right away. And objecting, like you did then, to a harmless colloquialism for "a bit mad" can only reveal undue sensitivity in you to that subject. Keep quiet about it like a good chap and keep on trying because overall, you're winning. I am on your side, you know, but you do need the occasional prod in the right direction.

that doesnt work lmao.  you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a  false assumption

In order to try to provide some sort of solution within a tight time and cost frame, it's necessary to do something like this. It isn't a false assumption by the second move, since it's acceptable to assume, with about 100% chance of being right, that black cannot win by force. However, it obviously isn't to the taste of those who, probably wrongly, believe that a deductive solution should be possible. I think there are problems regarding what people expect of deduction. In a system like this, which although it's technically closed, is not perfect information, we really can't depend on deduction, because there are too many unknowns. Indeed, I think that tygxc is somewhat along the right lines. I can't see it though, in a cost frame of $3 million and a time frame of five years. What he is proposing is scientifically based, rather than purely deductively based.

In order to try to provide some sort of solution within a tight time and cost frame, it's necessary to do something like this. It isn't a false assumption by the second move, since it's acceptable to assume, with about 100% chance of being right, that black cannot win by force. However, it obviously isn't to the taste of those who, probably wrongly, believe that a deductive solution should be possible. I think there are problems regarding what people expect of deduction. In a system like this, which although it's technically closed, is not perfect information, we really can't depend on deduction, because there are too many unknowns. Indeed, I think that tygxc is somewhat along the right lines. I can't see it though, in a cost frame of $3 million and a time frame of five years. What he is proposing is scientifically based, rather than purely deductively based.

You aren't aware that there's always been a glitch, which they haven't bothered to repair? If you delete the wrong part of what you're quoting, you're then unable to write in the box. I hadn't understood the pattern because it's quite complex.

mpaetz did u see the part where i said that there is/was some definition confusion?  also, you are making a mistake on a difference that optimissed and I pointed out.  that is the difference between a scientific proof and a math proof. 

whether the sun is egg is a scientific question.  the complexity of solving chess is a math question. 

also physics at that level is so freaking complex that optimissed cant be faulted for not knowing exactly what it was about (what he said was also somewhat rhetorical).

@8103

"Sveshnikov's plan: the conclusion has been reached before the investigation begins"
++ The aim of weakly solving Chess is not to ascertain that Chess is a draw, we already know that, but rather to establish how.

@8104

"so we will arbitrarily start from a few selected positions with 20% of the pieces eliminated"

++ No, not arbitrarily, but thoughtfully. That is why Sveshnikov first asked for good assistants and then for modern computers. That is why the grandmasters are as essential as the computers.
I presented a complete rationale starting from an ICCF WC draw as the seeded line.

I wouldn't mind betting that chess is a draw with someone who thinks it may not be. Or betting that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white with someone who thinks it may not. neither would have a chance of winning so I could make a lot of l=money on an accumulator betting their dollar (or a £) against my million, a thousand times. Not that I have a million. I could borrow it against the certainty I would win.

I wouldn't mind betting that chess is a draw with someone who thinks it may not be. Or betting that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white with someone who thinks it may not. Neither would have a chance of winning, so I could make a lot of money on an accumulator, betting their dollar (or a £) against my million, a thousand times. Not that I have a million. I could borrow it against the certainty I would win.

@8165

"you arent just calculating 1 black response"
++ I use the already calculated ICCF WC draws as seeded lines.
I take the black moves as they were and explore white alternatives.