Chess will never be solved, here's why

@13497

"an extra pawn sometimes wins and sometimes doesn't"
++ Close to the initial position an extra pawn wins. Of course some endgames with 1, 2, or even 3 extra pawns draw, but close to the initial position the side with the extra pawn can steer clear of those and convert the extra pawn.
Example:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072457

5 Qa4+ 'After this check Szabo might as well have resigned' - Bronstein

In some positions yes other positions no sometimes I get one extra tempi and I completely dominate the game other times it's a dead draw depending on the position tempo is the biggest influence other times is doesn't matter hence 3tempi =1 pawn is false sometimes tempi is greater than a pawn sometimes it is not

@13502

"so this position wins for black"
'It loses by force' - Fischer
'I could not find a way for white to equalise' - Kramnik
See also Figure 4d

See also TCEC.
There is good reason why it is no longer played in top competition, except for an occasional surprise.

@13501

"tell you the result of the starting position"
Here

Lol tygxc is getting allies slowly look at the other two threads

tygxc, instead of downvoting, why dont you just provide the proof that you claim exists?

for example, where's the mathematically rigorous proof that Ba6 loses?

(See you've resorted to composing your quotes yourself instead of just snipping them out of context.)

What's Here supposed to tell me? That an engine that can manage only 100% draws from some 5 piece positions (winning or drawing) can only manage 100% draws from the starting 32 piece position with the help of people 1000 ELO weaker? Am I supposed to be surprised, informed or what?

Oof. Savage ...

And yes, of course ICCF games are all likely to be draws. The competitors are almost certainly all using the same narrow pool of engines to analyze with ... Nobody has an advantage in playing strength.

Thats part of the problem drawing ,winning ,losing cant really solve chess on its own lol t also makes sense that most computers will draw if they are going for only a draw /win tbh in chess sometimes to win you have to take risks that look like it weakens your position even tho it doesn't

for example, where's the mathematically rigorous proof that Ba6 loses?

wait a sec...why stop there ?? lets getta proof for this...lol !!

hmm

or this grand prix:

with black to move (having the tempo)...re: black hazza humongous lead...5 points to 2 points.

HMM

Lol tygxc is getting allies slowly look at the other two threads

only cuz ppl found a attackee after opti got opti'ed out. Ty challenges w/ thot provokers...and i TOTALLY support that. esp against talkers who dont do a/t except sit on tom thumb & philosophize.

what from tygxc is thought provoking though? his entire platform is just a rejection of mathematical logic.

im genuinely curious at how tygxc could be in any way a challenge beyond how terrence howard is a challenge.

its just that he challenges ur common sense as u secretly push ur own away. thats a u problem not a Ty problem. yet ppl attack Ty. only cuz theyre frustrated-angry w/ themself for abandoning their own common sense.

Not really. He gets some posters that come and go and know nothing about the problem. He's never had a single ally with any chops to speak of. Stop giving him new places to start his mantra over again.

again...just jealous. hism blism lol !