Chess will never be solved, here's why

So, have we solved chess yet?

No, but then again there was never a chance of that in our lifetimes anyway. This thread is about dispelling the myth that chess is known to be a forced draw.

So the thread is actually about propagandising your heavily flawed version of reality.

I know it's a forced draw.

Dio isn't really part of the conversation though it is mostly magan mega (who is the only one actually doing something ) and elroch all he's doing is mostly messing with you

No, but then again there was never a chance of that in our lifetimes anyway.

AI & ever more zoomy computers may just do so in 10-20 yrs. one never knows...

plz see Law #1...hth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

And who gets so excited if someone makes a comment that they have to make three comments in reply?

This guy is pretending he ever made an intelligible argument.

It was ended because he says that the fiftieth time he attacked tygxc, it was a win. That's in his rule book.

That other thread, which I looked at, is ridiculous. Only yes-persons allowed and it seems to be moderated by someone who doesn't understand the subject, hasn't the intelligence needed to make reasoned judgements, won't tolerate people who disagree with THEM and won't tolerate anyone who uses sentences of more than 10 words. I forget their name.

If either of you were capable of honest comments you would be respected.

Your only method is to talk down to people, insult them, misrepresent their comments and then pretend you won an argument by logical means. Complete fakes. Anything that disagrees with your opinions is "inappropriate".

The fact that games have been solved shows that the scientific/empirical approach espoused by @tygxc with its lack of certainty is not the only approach. By definition, all solutions are mathematical in character, not scientific, and fall into the classes of:

1. ultra-weak solution - proof of the value of the result with optimal play
2. weak solutions - (generally computer assisted) proofs of the value of the result with optimal play by proving specific strategies are optimal
3. strong solutions - proofs of the value of the result with optimal play from every legal state.

Mathematical solution includes rigorous proofs incorporating computer checking of examples - famously an early example of these outside of game theory was the 1976 solution of the 4 colour problem, showing (in intuitive terms) that regardless of the nature of the boundaries, any map can be coloured with 4 colours. The proof incorporated computer checking of a large (but finite) list of examples too numerous for a human to check.

The reason mathematical solution is the type that is of interest is that a rigorous solution of a game is an entirely specific endpoint. It is either achieved or it is not. It is not yet achieved for chess, and the size of the problem makes it beyond what is currently feasible.

By contrast, there is not such thing as "the" scientific solution of chess - there is a continuum of uncertainty regardless of what (empirical) methods are used. The uncertainty can go down but it is impossible for empirical, non-rigorous means to achieve the magic step where uncertainty goes to zero - that distinction is exclusive to rigorous mathematical solution. I understand that not everyone here understands that small numbers (probabilities) are not zero, but that is undeniable.

Even @tygxc vascillates between assertions that chess is definitely a draw and describing a multi-year program of empirical exploration for the purpose of convincing himself that chess is a draw (comically achieving this while ignoring 17 of the first moves for white). Neither is final. Neither is certain.

Earlier we had:
 "ekroch and dio blocking everyone is a bit silly though"
They don't block everybody. 
That's not true.
They block trolling people.
Which is righteous.
And trolling people aren't 'everybody'.
Regarding 'O' - his postings aren't 'useful foils' whereas many of tygxc's posts are. O is just trolling.
He's something like 'Trelayne' in Star Trek.
'A personal conflict between us?? Wonderful!!'
Its like O continues to spam variations on that year in year out.
Its easy to skip such monotony.
I'm thinking some give him a lot of attention - because they feel sorry for him.
To put it another way - Its a 'pity party' for O.

I also block trolling people.
Righteously.
And of course such people scream and scream about being blocked.
Like you are now BC.
Keep screaming.