Chess will never be solved, here's why

that logic is circular.  

your logic ignores the possibility of a starting position being infinitely up due to a forced checkmate

" GM Sveshnikov had it figured out long before me." 

no he didnt, you are just taking what he says out of context.

@8281

"wikipedia"
++ Wikipedia is only as good as the sources it quotes. In this case it is an unsourced opinion of some unknown wikipedia author. Everybody can edit wikipedia, no expertise required.

i wouldnt even need to be a math student to see where you go wrong.

you are making errors that I caught in middle school.

I actually was able to prove that a strategy stealing argument doesnt work for chess back in middle school.  I got inspired by the solution to chomp and wanted to see how it did with chess.  I then saw how it couldnt worked, and successfully proved the opposite.

@8284

"you are just taking what he says out of context"
++ No, It is the essence of his interview, it is even the title of it.

@8286

"successfully proved the opposite"
++ Well show your proof: show a consistent way to presumably win for black.
Whatever you come up with, there is a corresponding white win by losing a tempo.
White has many ways to lose a tempo: moving a pawn first 1 then 2 squares, moving a bishop  or queen twice along a diagonal or moving a rook twice along a rank or file.
White has ways to lose 2 tempi: moving a knight back and forth.

kinda funny how I find those quotes from the source they cite.

It has literally been years since I have found something adaquately sourced yet still wrong from wikipedia.  

the strategy stealing claim you have could easily have been figured out over a century ago, but yet does not appear in any major chess publication or on wiki.  why?

who first proved the strategy stealing argument for chess?

"White has many ways to lose a tempo: moving a pawn first 1 then 2 squares, moving a bishop  or queen twice along a diagonal or moving a rook twice along a rank or file. 
White has ways to lose 2 tempi: moving a knight back and forth."

you neglect the fact that black can also lose tempo by doing the exact same things.
 

@tygxc

@8283

"ignores the possibility of a starting position being infinitely up due to a forced checkmate"
++ The initial position is perfectly balanced: equal material, equal positions.
White only has the advantage of the initiative: one tempo up.
That advantage dilutes with each move. We know from gambits that 1 pawn is worth 3 tempi.
A pawn can queen, a tempo not. A tempo is not enough to win.

"" The initial position is perfectly balanced: equal material, equal positions"

position is an assumption, given the tempo.

either checkmate IS or ISNT considered an advantage.

 "White only has the advantage of the initiative: one tempo up. That advantage dilutes with each move"

that cant be proven by you.

@8290

"black can also lose tempo by doing the exact same things"
++ Yes, black can lose tempi too, but then black cannot have a consistent win.
Say 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Ng1 Ng8 is a draw by repetition.
Black cannot repeat the exact same things if black is supposed to win.
I said before: if 1 e4 c5 were a black win, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 is a white win.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 is a white win.
Sure black can avoid the best moves, but then there can be no consistent win.

there is an "error" in this argument but i honestly hope you dont fall for that fallacy.  

@8293

"either checkmate IS or ISNT considered an advantage."
++ Of course checkmate is an advantage. There is no forced checkmate in the initial position.

"That advantage dilutes with each move" ++ Of course. In the initial position the tempo count is 0-0. Then after white's first move it becomes 1-0. After black's reply 1-1. After white's 2nd move 2-1, then 2-2, 3-2, 3-3, 4-3, 4-4 etc. Thus with each move the tempo advantage diminishes.

"That advantage dilutes with each move" ++ Of course. In the initial position the tempo count is 0-0. Then after white's first move it becomes 1-0. After black's reply 1-1. After white's 2nd move 2-1, then 2-2, 3-2, 3-3, 4-3, 4-4 etc. Thus with each move the tempo advantage diminishes."" 

those are literally just numbers.  that doesnt mean anything.

when you have mate in 5 it doesnt matter how much tempo you have.  if white has mate in 80 tempo doesnt matter either.

"There is no forced checkmate in the initial position"

you cant prove that.

"Advantage" independent of the optimal result is an insubstantial and ambiguous notion for imperfect players that has very little relevance to this forum. Your mock reasoning is typical of you. The truth for imprecise players is that advantage indicates uncertainty. If the result was viewed as a certain draw by an imperfect player, why would they think they had an advantage? 

The bigger the advantage to an imperfect player, the higher they view the probability the result will be a win, but the result remains uncertain until later.

@8299

"when you have mate in 5 it doesnt matter how much tempo you have"
++ But you need some advantage to get to a mate in 5.
If black does not play optimally, then white has a checkmate in 4:
1 e4 e5 2 Qh5 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6? 4 Qxf7#
That however requires an error 3...Nf6? on black's part.
If black defends adequately then white cannot checkmate black.
Beginner games can end in quick checkmates,
but grandmaster games usually go to endgames where queening a pawn is the way to win.

@8301

"Advantage independent of the optimal result is an insubstantial and ambiguous notion for imperfect players that has very little relevance to this forum"
++ Perfect players always draw.
However, white has more ways to draw than black as white is a tempo up.

"advantage indicates uncertainty" ++ There are more pitfalls for black than for white.
White can afford to lose 2 tempi. Black can only afford to lose 1 tempo.