Chess will never be solved, here's why

A couple of points:

You are assuming that chess MUST be a draw with best play, a contention that has by no means been proved.

If your definition of "good move" changes with the situation on the board, then your original explanation of the term was indeed imprecise.

:
:
All that is necessary is to define a good move as anything that doesn't alter the game-state, since it's impossible to produce a move that alters the game-state positively. So it's precise.
:
If chess were ever shown to be a forced win, I think many people would stop playing because it would entirely alter the game and the way it's played. It isn't going to happen, though, so it's an assumption that doesn't require any more proof than already exists. I actually believe that it is completely impossible to arrive at a deductive proof regarding the outcome of chess with best play.

First you defined your "better" term "good move" as something that does not lead to loss by force. Then you defined it as something that preserves the win. Now you define it as anything that doesn't alter the game-state. Perhaps your first definition WAS imprecise, which was all I was trying to point out.

People will pay a pretty penny to play a simul vs a world-champion despite the fact that they are almost certain to lose. They continue to play chess even though engines have proved that humans cannot play perfectly. They will continue to play even if it turns out machines can force a win from move one.

I apologize for any mistaken impression you may have drawn from my previous post--I should have said "a contention that has not been proved to everyone's satisfaction".

That's why we need agreement on the meaning of the words in use.

Would you normally call Rb8 a good move in this positon? (We can agree to call it "perfect", but I wouldn't call it "good".)

Or try this White win (as White) against both SF and the top moves from Syzygy.

We know the top moves from Syzygy are perfect (what you've just referred to as "good") and those from SF are quite often not. Which of the two would you really say is making good moves?

In my opinion psychology has about as much place in a chess game as on a race track or a poker game. No one cares why a NASCAR driver made a risk maneuver to pass or poker player made an iffy bet to bluff his hand. All that matters is the success or failure of the move. If the driver wins the position or the race, or the gambler wins the hand, the move was a good one. If not the moves were the wrong ones.

you look delishose

i smell your hair

you monkey

jokes on you i already reported you for terroristic threats.

this is my form

This is for a chess achievement

did you know that on 911 people died

its a fact

nu uh

Chess was solved a long time ago when computers were able to beat any human player. it took longer for a computer to beat the best Go players, but it worked ultimately. 

That's not the definition of solving a game.

^ not quite, but never mind

Hopefully the mods will do an IP check here and stop the troll from talking to himself.

like 3000 right

yes

another thread I won't miss.