Chess will never be solved, here's why

Ghostess... ...do not care to involve themselves with malicious people.

sooo true Opti. TY yee !

...and know that the op went poof. so they cant throw u off this thread. and thats a good thing.

The posters you admire are not that admirable, and pure malice for "city-dwellers" is a primary motivator for one of them. Let's just say you seem overly easy to manipulate for certain demographics. I'll leave it at that.

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.

I know it's a forced draw.

Therefore it isn't a myth.

Nah your dispelling that it has been proven to be a forced draw

But yes it is most likely a draw

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

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

You don't, and you never will. You'll be dust long before...

This argument was already ended many times in the 500 pages of this thread by myself and many others, and as well as in my own thread, which does not allow nonsense arguments like Tygxc or Optimissed put forth.

yes sireeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

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.

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?

reminder that tygxc claimed that a lack of apparent counterexample could be considered a formal proof

You are incorrect, and one of the very last people who should be trying to invoke Arthur C. Clarke. Stick with L. Frank Baum or something...

That would be you, on the last page...

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=582#comment-103316911

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=582#comment-103316917

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=582#comment-103316937

Sometimes it's like you just want to embarrass yourself.

You're not capable of distinguishing the ridiculous from the reasonable, as you've proven countless times.

Yes. Arrogance enables him to make comically inappropriate judgements on things he does not understand.