Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.
Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.
Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?
No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.
the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.
nothing in the world can change that.
So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.
If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.
So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.
If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.
His comment is the most downvoted in the chess community 💀💀💀
"In reality, haven't you been asking people whether tygxc has any justification and they're been answering that he doesn't? I've been in some difficult discussions with mathematicians on this site and I wouldn't get into arguments if I didn't think someone was wrong. Regarding what is acceptable as a proof, it seems obvious that a logician or mathematician accepts different criteria for proof than a scientist accepts, since mathematicians and logicians deal with an ideal world populated by ideals and scientists deal with the real world and all the inductive judgements which have to be made."
it is not standards of proof differing across fields that is the issue here, its that hes combining such differencees with obvious logical fallacies that you yourself can see.