Chess will never be solved, here's why

They are about there

https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104

bro i thought you would have realized your mistakes by now. you're still on this?

86 perfect games and counting

this means absolutely nothing. there is no proof of their perfection, just as you haven't proved that black doesnt win every game under perfect play.

go ahead, provide the peer reviewed proof.

Doesn't matter. Chess is going to not only survive, but also thrive. We will have better players coming up and the top level chess getting bigger.

@9102

I doubt it. We are now at 100% draws in correspondence and are approaching 100% draws in classical. Carlsen does not even want to play the Classical World Championship.
I expect faster time controls: 90|30 classical and 15|10 rapid.

@9103

wheres the proof

Aljens too think different about chess. Since devil wounded god and gave to them freedom they think different about chess. It is very difficult for human brain to solve a complicated position. I wonder if they will interfere by helping firouzja because his face is like devil once upon now dead their god warrior

Chess is a puzzle and so, it is solvable. You know why? Because of the "first move" which the white player is obliged to have. Because of this "First move" this gives the player opportunity to develop first. If both players constantly plays the best move the advantage points that white has will never go down but rather go up linearly until to the point it will be forced mate. And if you're asking "how about the brilliant moves? Doesn't that apply to the equation?". Then the answer to that is brilliant moves will not exist if a certain mistake in any point in the game has not been done.
Chess is just a puzzle because of the "First move". That's just it.
People make computers play chess to discover theories that would somehow help solve chess. But computers are made from us humans who has a limit. For now it is not solved but soon it will be. Chess is made from us human who has a limit. So, it must also have a certain limit where it could be solved.

We are about there. It is a draw.
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104

why do you continue to ignore how i completely disproved your arguments?

Is chess the same with tic tac toe?

@9109

"Is chess the same with tic tac toe?"
++ Yes, it is a forced draw as well, but many many times more complex.

@9106

You have not disproved anything at all.

@9108

Look at the link: 95 games, 95 draws and counting. (GM Dronov exceeded the time limit of 50 days / 10 moves, presumably for some personal reason like illness.)
Black draws against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3, not in one, but in several ways.
The late GM Sveshnikov, 65+ World Champion and world expert on engine opening analysis, which he taught to aspiring Russian masters, was right in his interview.
Sveshnikov persumably did not drink any alcohol, as he was ill with cancer.

@tygx, that is inductive reasoning which ALWAYS leaves uncertainty. Proclamations about the infallibility of Sveshnikov are not an adequate substitute for understanding the nature of reasoning.

@9113

Look at the link: 95 games that is centuries of computer time.

@9113

Sveshnikov was GM.
He was 65+ World Champion.
He taught aspiring masters and grandmasters how to analyse openings with engines.

Those are facts, not opinion.

Logically speaking, you can do so if it is false and you can't do so if it isn't (this is true because chess is a finite game).

The way to prove that chess is a draw is to exhibit two strategies - one for each side - that are proven to always at least draw. The way to prove it is not is to exhibit a strategy for one side that is proven to always win.

A strategy is a methodical procedure to play a move against absolutely any opposing play. A bound on the result of a strategy can be proven in some cases.

@9116

"against absolutely any opposing play"
++ No, also logic is allowed.
Once proven black draws against 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3, it is unnecessary to do the same for the 16 other, logically inferior white first moves.
Also logic awards a first move advantage to white, so it is unnecessary to prove white can draw.