Chess will never be solved, here's why

On Facebook, they allowed you to properly block others and, to be fair, although it can disrupt conversations, it kept things better behaved. Sometimes, after being blocked for a while, people can be unblocked safely. There are two people here I would block without hesitation, were it possible. My personal experience here would be greatly improved as a result. I actually think that blocking could be brought in here but only maybe for one month maximum.

Unfortunately, you aren't one, so I wouldn't be being honest. You really are something else.

Anyhow, talk among yourselves now, trolls.

There's something called a 'phony exit' too.
Also - I glanced and saw 'bring in blocking' ... lol.
Blocking has always existed ...  opening posters can block anybody in a forum.   He's pretending he doesn't realize it ??
I got earlier:  "I won't interact with you again" ...  Kind of like a threat ?
How much of the time does he believe his own nonsense ??
Encounters and experience with these behaviours indicates such persons 'oscillate'.  Between deceit and 'total insidious'.  Total self-deception !  
He'll probably be back very shortly. 

I suppose it's ok to answer a clear error and also to be back very shortly. Learn the difference between blocking here, which isn't blocking to speak of, and blocking elsewhere. I did explain it but you already showed you can't read. You're actually completely mad, too.

As expected - definitely contradicting 'I won't interact with you again'.
And as predicted - back very promptly.

Yes, bti .... playerafar.

Disagree - either they'll have to soup up the hardware/software/programming many millions of percent -
or the human race will have to survive millions of years ...
or both.
They could have solved chess on another planet in some other galaxy though.  Or maybe even in this Galaxy !
But their chess might have different rules though !   
Like - for castling - your rook can't castle out of or through attack - which it currently can in long castling.  
3d chess ?  Maybe that'll be on 'phones' in 100 years ...

That's so strange. I wrote this, nearly making an unfortunate error in the process, and you seemed to post something here immediately, which you'd already written for another thread and which moved this over to the next page.

I actually read that one - basically ignored almost instantly.
But it gives me an opportunity to post again without making consecutive posts.
I can do that by editing/adding to this one.
Or by posting after the next expected retort that I'm 90% unlikely to read.

Yes, btickler made an identical observation to me a few days ago. You're both perfectly correct.

That doesn't mean it has 'solved' that ECO code.
(is it an 'easy' code?  Did somebody play the Duras gambit?)  
Did the computer 'dismiss' various ensuing positions and options ?

Its possible there'll be no reply to that one from @tygxc 

If one thinks about it, playerafar, there's only one possible explanation as to why you're so antagonistic. After all, two weeks ago we weren't aware of each others' existence. Anyhow, you carry on with tygxc.

Five man positions are sometimes tough for computers too if they haven't got a tablebase. Whether it's basic or competition rules.

I repeat a couple of examples I posted earlier:

The initial position is a draw, but Leela loses as Black. SF8, SF11 and SF12 do the same from similar positions (but SF14 manged a draw under the 50-move rule from the same position, that might be normal for SF14).

This is SF14 trying a mate in 50 against Syzygy, but drawing on move 6.

I think none of the currently available engines can manage a White mate deeper than 35 in that endgame.

Some engines even struggle with four pieces on the board.

Of course humans do no better, below are the same two endgames played by strong grandmasters.

Karpov blows the draw and moves into a mate in 16, Topalov then blows the win ,  Karpov then gives it back to him, all in the space of 9 moves.

Epishin performs very much like Rybka.  

Wonder of wonders .... another needlessly long post, almost seeming to deliberately create distance from #642 just above. This is really quite a coincidence, since it happened twice already.

Just thought it might be a change to talk about the topic.

The post gives further insight into how close to perfection current players are and hence how much credibility should be given to those who know that the starting position (massively more complicated) is a draw.

If you're worried about people discussing the topic you can always post round it.

OK fair enough. In fact I wholegheartedly agree. You're being sarcastic, of course, but in its way, the starting position of chess is extremely simple. That's paradoxically because at the starting position the pieces have the most possibilities to move. BUT the position is fully symmetrical.

Well there's two posts by MARattigan -
who - unlike the other guy - can discuss without personalizing.  
So I'll read those now.  Skipping reading the posts from - you know ...

If you trace the development of a game, generally it becomes less symmetrical and more unbalanced as the 30 move mark is passed. However, provided no blunders have been committed, the imbalance is insufficient for either side to force a win. And then, as the next 30 moves are played, gradually the game retreives its former symmetry and a draw is declared. There;s nothing in chess that can cause such an upset as to break this symmetry, which is dynamic as well as static. It's drawn because there's no other possibility, no matter what the great intellects of playerafar and others proclaim.

You don't think you could just step back slightly and, you know .... let people discuss this?