Chess will never be solved, here's why

I think that the reason black's advantage remains at round about -0.7, no matter what white does is because white is playing engine moves based on short term assessments rather than more strategically powerful moves. If black really was winning, I think the advantage would start to show. I've played many hedgehog-like positions where I'm given a similar disadvantage by the engine or maybe even up to 1.8 and yet on carefully analysing, there hasn't been a forced win and often I've gone on to win.

I'm afraid all you have achieved is to convince me that 1. g4 is a very bad move for white but is one that probably doesn't lose by force.

@9579

"1. g4 is a very bad move"
++ Yes, 1 g4? is the worst possible first move, and the only one that loses.

"that probably doesn't lose by force"
++ 1 g4? loses by force. Please present your own line where in the end white holds the draw.
That is how chess analysis works. One side tries to win, one side tries to draw.
In the end one side succeeds and one side fails. The failing side must find an improvement.
If the failing side cannot find an improvement that succeeds, then proof is final.

1. g4 is top, change my mind

A scientist would give a different answer and it's scientists we have to trust. Look at the nonsense invented by Cantor, regarding transfinite numbers, for instance.

I suggest maybe you could perform an IQ test on your maths lecturers and professors. Just ask them what they think of Cantor's transfinite sets. If they accept them without reservation, they're unintelligent. If they can think of objections to it then they possess a degree of intelligence. They are allowed to accept them with reservations if they can make a decent case both for their reservations and again why they think those reservations may be insufficient.

No other answer indicates an IQ sufficient to provide a useful answer to whether or not we can accept that chess is a draw.

You can even show them this post afterwards.

@9581

1 g4? loses by force. I presented several lines that win for black.
Please provide your own improved line that holds the draw for white.

no

You haven't shown that it definitely loses. There are always objections. It may be that it doesn't lose but that the defence is very hard to find, so you haven't proven it.

I don't need to present lines, since you are merely arguing from authority, or attempting to. My objection holds.

@9585

"You haven't shown that it definitely loses." ++ I have presented several lines.

"There are always objections." ++ Present no objections, present a line that draws.

"I don't need to present lines" ++ I do not need to either, but I did nevertheless, you did not.

"you are merely arguing from authority" ++ I am not arguing from authority. I could say I am higher rated than you, so I know better than you, but I did not, I went through the effort.

"My objection holds." ++ It does not. You did not present a single line that holds.

You have not presented a proof that 1. g4 loses. All you've done is to present some losing lines. I've always found objections to them and you've always given an alternative for black, followed by, yet again, another poor move for white.

You have not proven it and I do not intend to carry on with this, since you have altered my opinion away from the belief that 1. g4 loses and towards the belief that the position can be held.

I may or may not present a line which I think holds, in the future. I take it that you don't expect such a line to appear miraculously, in 10 minutes, so the conversation is over for the present. OK

If it had only been one or two I wouldn't be convinced, but as long as it is several lines, no-one will be able to argue. I am pretty sure that the definition of solving a position is to deal with three possible combinations of responses by the opponent, so several should be plenty.

[SARCASM ALERT]

That's pretty good sarcasm.
The forum could be used for 'sarcasm workout' ...
'weakly solved' ... what is that like?
How about 'squaring the circle'?
Is it weakly solved?
Hey you could take all the atoms in the circle and re-arrange them in a square ...
Is that 'weakly solving'?
I don't think its monthly solving either - or millenial solving - or era solving - or Big Bang solving ....
On squaring the circle there's no solving ... 
But yes - they're 'working on it'.
---------------------------------------------------------------
if one were to argue that chess is mathematical (its other things too) and 'winning' and 'drawing' are close enough to 'solving' then such results are mathematical.
Rigorously and absolutely defined.
Its either 'solved' or its not.
There's a lot of 'A or B' in mathematics when it refers to itself
and mathematics when referring to things that exist - its rather 'adjectival' as it were.
Trees - rocks - water 'exist' but math can describe or refer to them - usually approximately. Math can refer to reality whereas the ethereal can't ... like reverse time travel for example.
-----------------------------------------------
But when math is referencing itself - it becomes absolute or perfect much of the time.
So chess 'weakly solved' just doesn't look right.
Chess too close to math for that idea to be valid.
That terminology is used - but its bad terminology.
Weakly subdivided and classified would be better.
tygxc trying to exploit the faults in the semantics.
With some success.
He's getting Attention.
For years now.

@9589

"'weakly solved' ... what is that like?"
++ Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
Games solved: Now and in the future

Likewise Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers: it is a draw.

Now for Chess for the initial position a strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw against any opposition is to follow an ICCF World Championship Finals draw for as long as possible and then proceed with an ICCF (grand)master and an engine at 5 days/move.

From many of your posts I have determined that you don't understand what weakly solved means.

It is necessary to deal with ALL LEGAL RESPONSES to a specific strategy, not just "several" responses.

O: "T, you haven't proven the twin prime conjecture"

T: "You haven't disproved it, therefore I have proven it"

[Same reasoning as part of the discussion above].

@Elroch
Yes - we're having a sarcasm-fest.

I'm posting this video about stalemate ...
yes it might not be relevant even at all.
If not - mea culpa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFykCZ4I34 might put a 'wrensch' in things ...

The remainder descended further still into personalised dribble. Did you come here to show off your accomplishments? Is so it would have been better had you not behaved like a troll in your own threads for years by attacking those disagreeing with you. You are not an exceptionally intelligent person and no-one need take you the slightest bit seriously at all, except maybe those who feed off you. You are VERY much out of your league and I think sometimes that realisation dawns on you.

Moral. Don't let your king-sized inferiority complex show by pretending how fantastic and, of course, epic you are, Liam.