Chess will never be solved, here's why

There I updated it, man.

I'd say that was dubious.

I'll play black.  @tygxc assures me you need three tempi to deserve an extra pawn and exactly one pawn is a winning advantage (and your diagram clearly has no assymmetries to worry about).

I did not put down enough stipulations.

     It seems to me there are three basic schools of thought here concerning the original question:   

     1)  The OP is incorrect, chess has already been sufficiently demonstrated to be inherently drawn, there is no room for doubt. This camp is divided into those who feel their strongly-held opinion is sufficient "proof" and those who seek a quick and "cheap" way to demonstrate that their opinion is correct.

     2)  The OP is incorrect, it is possible to solve chess but present-day techniques and technology make the time-frame for a solution something none of us can hope to live to see.

     3)  The OP is correct, the game too complex or the methodology too cumbersome for it to be analyzed to an irrefutable solution in all lines. 

No. Neither did you prove any of your positions were drawn.

But this one's definitely drawn.

Re, MAR;

The above is surely not a Draw.

Possibly not (if you mean the last one you posted) - I thought your assertion was they all were.

If you're talking about the one I posted above, which side would you say can force checkmate?

no kings = draw

#8360 is No, Draw.

This site won't let me quote myself.

How about with just, no Queens?

Such as this;

Test

Nope it will let quote myself, but not the Chess.com diagrams I insert.

:thumbsup

I saw you do a thing, so I also did the thing.

B A

report

CHATGTP

I'm sorry, but I need more context to provide a meaningful report. Can you please provide additional information on what you would like a report on?

what is the meaning of the following passage:  Bah! Now hark, a bumbling barefoot blindside, cast with brazen and bilious bombast betwixt the bellicose brain-bandying of these Boolean belligerents. Hark, and beware - becalm this Ben-besetting blizzard of banal barking, before my garrulous inclination becomes the bereft and booming bane of blandation, and bark and barker both are banished beyond the blithe bedpan of their bunk-bloated Baronies, to bemoan, with bourgeoning bewilderment, the black Balrog boon of a buried, biding, belittling bite.

The passage is a piece of writing that employs a mixture of archaic and invented words, as well as figurative language and sarcasm. It appears to be a critique of a disagreement between people that is perceived as noisy and pointless. The writer is expressing their frustration with the situation and asking for the arguments to stop, as they believe that both parties will be better off if they calm down. They are also warning that if the argument continues, it may lead to undesirable consequences. Overall, the passage is an example of creative writing that uses humor, irony, and vivid language to convey a message.

more information required. what are the parties arguing about?

Unfortunately, the passage does not provide specific information about what the parties are arguing about. It only provides a general description of the situation, using sarcasm, irony, and figurative language to describe the argument as noisy, pointless, and disruptive. The writer does not state what the parties are arguing about, but instead focuses on the negative impact of the argument and the need for it to stop.

what is the nature of the rhetoric that the writer finds tiresome? 

The nature of the rhetoric that the writer finds tiresome is described in the passage as "brazen and bilious bombast" and "banal barking". These phrases suggest that the writer finds the arguments to be loud, aggressive, and lacking in substance. The writer uses sarcasm to criticize the parties for engaging in noisy and pointless arguments that are not productive. The use of words like "bumbling barefoot blindside" and "bellicose brain-bandying" also indicate that the writer views the argument as chaotic and lacking in logic or reasoning. Overall, the writer appears to be frustrated with the nature of the rhetoric they are hearing, which they find to be bombastic, banal, and disruptive.

no. no, large language set, no! you came down on the wrong side of the ambiguity - the writer is the one who blindsides with brazen and bilious bombast, not the belligerents he is scolding. you choose poorly, and note that an intelligent entity could have inferred that the writer is the blindsider from his subsequent statements. now, regarding the nature of the argument - another failure, large language set: you specify almost every word except the key.  Boolean.  They are Boolean belligerents.  Continue your analysis.

I apologize for the mistake in my previous answer. The passage suggests that the writer is the one engaging in "brazen and bilious bombast" and "banal barking" and that they are blindsiding others with this rhetoric.

Regarding the term "Boolean belligerents", it appears that the writer is referring to people who are involved in an argument that involves the use of Boolean logic. Boolean logic is a system of mathematical logic that uses binary values (i.e. true or false) to represent values and operations. In this context, the writer is likely using the term "Boolean belligerents" to describe people who are involved in an argument that is centered around the use of Boolean logic and who are using this logic in a combative or confrontational manner.

In conclusion, the nature of the argument described in the passage appears to involve the use of Boolean logic in a confrontational and aggressive manner. The writer is frustrated with the way in which the argument is being conducted and is urging the parties to stop."

     This seems to me to be subsumed in (1a). My opinion remains that chess is soluble, current engines are inadequate to the task, but it is presumptuous to rule out any possibility of a future "great leap forward" in understanding, technique and/or technology. 

@8358

"concerning the original question:"

1. Chess is ultra-weakly solved for all practical purpose and the game-theoretical value of the initial position is a draw. Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen, Nakamura said that and millions of human and engine games prove it, especially ICCF WC Finals games.
2. Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years with humans and existing computers, exhausting all 10^17 relevant positions just as has been done for Checkers: from the opening to a technical endgame. That is what Sveshnikov said and he was correct: facts & figures corroborate that.
3. Chess has been strongly solved for all positions with 7 men or less. Strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base is beyond present technology as 10^44 legal positions are too much.

Only #3 is true.  There's no ultra-weak solution that meets the definition, and the proposal for a weakly solved solution listed above is invalid.

No, none are true.