Chess will never be solved, here's why

Probably this post is the nearest thing to hand.

Let's take the hypothesis that chess is won for black. Black makes an error and the game's drawn but white misses its significance, doesn't capitalise and makes another error, so the game's back to being a black win, except that black misses the significance of the error by white and it's a draw again. Then white capitalises on the errors and it's drawing. Fifteen moves later black blunders and all of a sudden white is winning and does capitalise on it but three moves later, white blunders and black is winning.

Now, in all these cases, the so-called error is a blunder. An error is a move that makes the game significantly more difficult to play and it's nonsense to suggest that losing your queen when you're a K+Q vs K to reach a draw isn't a blunder. Disregarding that, black makes a further error and the game is drawn. No further blunders and the game ends in a draw, which is the expected result for "good moves by either side", since when the game was played, it wasn't realised that chess is a black forced win.

So that's the kind of scenario we're interested in. The trouble is, there's absolutely no reason or way that any game containing errors is a proof of anything. The analysis engine has no need to count up errors and blunders, except to prove some completely artificial and unnecessary pronouncement, concerning odd and even numbers of errors.

Therefore, the only thing the game theorists were really interested in "proving" is that the World should obey them and henceforth significantly distort nomenclature and add to the general confusion which causes people like Elroch to drone on pointlessly about what he thinks a weak solution really is, whilst completely missing something very simple like that.

Which is why he can't debate for nuts.

To tell the truth, I'm not obsessed by you although the reverse is the case. You don't really mean much to me. Finished ranting?

Still, it did encapsulate tygxc's mistake in a way that you really clever lot don't seem to be able to do.

It was a bedtime story. You should be asleep now and not planning your next rant.

Here? I mean, this comment?

I think I made one comment that I couldn't see the point and then you lot debated it for two years. About two years in, I made a comment to the effect that it didn't seem to have any bearing and next time I looked, a month or two later, you were all talking about something else that was equally irrelevant.

This comment?

Babies like their afternoon nap.

Oh are you still at it? "Can you recognise things of substance" comes to mind.

?What if I had claimed that the lockdowns killed over 100,000 people?

?What would your response have been?

I find the concept that an equal number of mistakes by top masters using the best engines, thereby preserving the draw, is any justification for the conclusion that chess is inherently drawn and any "solution" to chess will necessarily indicate it's drawn nature to be unconvincing. Just because GM/engine "A" misses a move that could lead to a lasting advantage and GM/engine "B" also fails to see it doesn't mean that the game has been played correctly.

When you take so-called experts at face value, very often you get drawn into the stuff they put out...

chessdotcom, the lowest rung of the debating ladder.

Not answering the question are we, because we know that however you answer that question you're getting yourself into trouble. The question was answered.

I think the admitted guess of a million will be about right. Covid will have cost that many deaths or thereabouts, due to the hysterical over-reaction. Maybe half a million but definitely a lot of deaths due to undiscovered cancer, heart attacks, strokes, suicide due to depression ....

If you can't be bothered to research it because you're too lazy and self-opinionated, It isn't for me to disarrange your comfortable posture. So sod off.

I can program too but unless you can give reasons that are at least half decent, why is anyone going to believe you? I'm the Emperor of China and I can wear iron shoes with ease. Just take my word for it and don't be a baby. Would I lie to you?