Chess will never be solved, here's why

But you're making that up. It's just untreated crap.

Nicer to dress it up as anecdotal cake.

Btw btickler my proof was that a strategy stealing argument would require at least a check or capture 

Actually @optimissed it IS possible to prove that the strategy stealing claim is incorrect.  I literally did so already

As I've several times pointed out to @Optimissed, if you think you've proved any general statement about chess and your argument is not based on anything specific in the starting position, then it must apply to chess with any other starting position. That means if you can find any other starting position where it doesn't apply, your proof is invalid.

But he doesn't accept logic. He thinks waffling is superior.

I have a far clearer mind than you. You are constantly diverted by irrelevancies and you get mixed up, so I certainly don't accept your logic or Megacheese's logic, which is also mixed up, as he's demonstrated. Your assumption that I'm here to prove any general statement about chess to you, MAR, is a fabrication. All I do is say what I think and I know I think more accurately than you and many others. I have less technical knowledge but what I understand, at least I can use it properly and well. You're also a troll.

No, you didn't. If you would care to direct me to the relevant passage then I'll read it. I don't think it exists.  ... :

Just read my last post.  That should do, so long as you don't try applying your unfeasibly clear mind in its customary fashion.

I read it. It's incorrect.

Only because you're applying your unfeasibly clear mind in its customary fashion. 

Fortunately, the standard position and nothing else is what is meant by chess. Not a starting position where whoever has the move has an immediate win, such as might happen if black had the f and g pawns missing etc. So your post was wrong.

Anyway, I'll leave you alone so you can breed small trolls.

Then your games can't be very long. But you prove my last point.

I’ll rephrase it here.  
a strategy stealing method requires being able to force a loss of a single tempo.

Black has the ability to play a mirrored move to whites position (until a capture or check) so no single tempo can be lost. 
hence, a simple strategy stealing method is impossible for white.  

What is important to note is that black does not HAVE to play the mirror move, rather that they COULD choose to do that.  If white decides to lose 2 tempo, black does not have to Match that.  

Anyway, I'll leave you alone so you can breed small trolls.
 MARattigan 
 
 
 0 
#8712
Optimissed wrote:Fortunately, the standard position and nothing else is what is meant by chess. Not a starting position where whoever has the move has an immediate win, such as might happen if black had the f and g pawns missing etc. So your post was wrong.
Then your games can't be very long. But you prove my last point.

Rubbish. Pretence maketh the troll, in this case.

You told me you could prove it but that's an assertion and not a proof. I don't accept your assertion, which is unproven. Do you actually know what a proof is?

Don't rely on MAR. He really is a troll.

Seriously, any proof regarding this would only emerge if and when chess is strongly solved. That isn't ever going to happen, of course.

“You told me you could prove it but that's an assertion and not a proof. I don't accept your assertion, which is unproven. Do you actually know what a proof is?”
 
it’s asserted because it’s already known to be true.  That’s how a math proof works.

I even gave the exact formulas for the mirror moves in my original proof