@9233
"deductive proof isn't available"
++ Even that. The white advantage is 1 tempo. 3 tempi = 1 pawn. 1 pawn is needed to win.
The white advantage is not enough to win. Chess is a draw.
yeah this confirms you are stupid.
your logic is literally "1 tempo isnt enough to win because 1 tempo isnt enough to win"
you dont get to make up the value of the starting position LMFAO
To be fair, it's old chess wisdom. I'm totally sure that chess is a draw with good play by both sides. Also I'm sure it's impossible to prove me wrong.
The argument about tempos is potentially faulty since it depends how you use the tempos. For instance, 1. g4 is supposed to be near to losing. Another mis-spent tempo and it would lose.
I prefer my own argument, concerning the trend towards equalisation in that white's extra tempo is gradually anulled with good play by both sides. The argument is that there's logically no way to reverse that trend, since either side can go on playing good moves. There is no point where either side is zugzwanged since a bad move has to be played to allow the zugzwang. There are too many potential permutations of chess moves available for that ever to be disproven. Such a proof itself would take trillions of years on a very fast computer, not that it exists. You could cut that down to billions of years by splitting the lines over 1000 computers, of course, so I suppose someone could live that long.
you are completely right! tygxc is arguing that this proof: "Such a proof itself would take trillions of years on a very fast computer, not that it exists." HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED.
If carlsen can still play to enjoy, i definitely can play to enjoy and so the “solution of chess” doesn’t matter