Chess will never be solved, here's why

     You need only look at this page to see you are wrong. Note how shangsung111 uses the word "good" for chess moves. Not exactly the way you have proposed. His "good" move that doesn't worsen your situation could well not be a "best" move that improves your chances. An accumulation of such "good" moves may lead you to miss out on a winning line.

That's irrelevant, how he uses it. I might use it because I'm enjoying an ice lolly. That doesn't mean it can only be used for that and not because a currency note I paid with is not a forgery.

Think about it some more and be prepared to alter your opinion. People would catch on quickly and in any case this alteration is for the benefit of academics and professionals. Not for this discussion, really.

That's counted you out for the past five years.

That's how I'm using it too. Talking to some of these people is like talking to the deranged and infirm.

     Wrong again--it IS relevant. My point is that using a common word with many shades of meaning will inevitably lead to many others misinterpreting what you are saying. Your fantasy that everyone would pick up your precise and limited definition of "good" in this context is demonstrably unfounded.

Now you're being very silly. Game theory is nothing at all to do with solving chess. I've explained why. It's because chess cannot be represented mathematically. By a definition of **what**, by the way? The person I mentioned tells me that it is absolutely impossible to represent chess mathematically. It will never be possible, according to him. He is highly qualified to give an opinion. You are not. He will also be more qualified than the so-called game theorists and anyone else here. You don't know what you're talking about.

That's exactly how I am using it, too. Winning lines are irrelevant in this part of the discussion. Only not playing losing lines is relevant.

I'm starting to wonder about your fantasy that you're sane. Intelligence is no longer expected. You are completely unable to understand plain English. Sorry that I have had to say it but it seems true. You're far from alone. MAR and one or two newcomers are just as bad. Total lack of comprehension of the English language.

I mean, the chances I'm wrong so many times are just about zero. Yet according to you I'm "wrong again". I hesitate to bring up the question of IQ but .... let's just leave it. In your confounded wisdom you and I disagree.

     Now you want us to believe that "winning lines are irrelevant" in an inquiry into the possibility that chess is won/lost from the original position. The problem of being "unable to understand plain English" is that many "plain English" words do not have the precise and limited meaning to everyone, even in a particular context, that you wish them to have,

if u bring up iq i WILL call u cringe.

     If you simply reiterate the same opinion it doesn't matter how many times you do so; your opinion still has the same chance of being incorrect.

     Your bringing up IQ is hardly "hesitating" considering how many times you have boasted about super-genius IQs in your family. You have posted enough content here to give others an idea about that. I remain unimpressed.

Hahaha oh Heavens you're funny! 

The forums are full of people being righteously indignant. Don't make a fool of yourself. Try to understand what I'm describing, because anyone who agrees with you on this is similarly challenged. Yes, sure I'm far cleverer than you. Maybe you have a nice singing voice.

      It's sad that you seem to be incapable of demonstrating your cleverness and superiority and always regress to casting aspersions on those who disagree with you.

Are you sure you're feeling well @Opimisswd?

Nobody understanding what I'm saying may well mean that I'm much more intelligent than others but it's really more of a reflection on their attitudes. It isn't that people aren't capable of learning but they simply do not wish to exercise their minds. It really does come over as being thick, however. Sorry and all that. I think a lot of people talking here have ego problems. Maybe I'm supposed to sort you all out! But sorry, you'll all have to help yourselves. More and more, as the sane ones leave, which they are doing, I feel like a visitor to a mad-house.

It's the personal attacks. You aren't the only one. I'm aware that trolling is catching. But yeah, so I'm far cleverer than most people here. But what I'm doing is thinking out loud. Bouncing my ideas off people and also finding out a lot about how different people react to stimuli. But really none of you are capable of arguing coherently or even understanding the simple statements of others. I really am aware that the types of people talking here may find it therapeutic to agree with others or whatever. That's not why I'm here and the reason for being here is becoming less obvious as others, who are more capable than the ones who remain, leave these forums, maybe for pastures new or to do something constructive. Most of the people left are a bit stupid and have ego-problems. It's stopped being fun even to bounce ideas around.

     Are the repeated declarations of your intellectual superiority and the stupidity of all who disagree an attempt to convince yourself that it must be true because "the chances I'm wrong so many times are just about zero"?

In an "All Pawns - Only - Set up, such as this,

who would win?

Someone besides, me. Test it out!

@7911

"a weakly solved game has an algorithm for perfect play"
++ No, a weakly solved game has
a strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
A strategy is no algorithm.
A strategy can be a set of moves like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination, most likely for Chess.