True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

There is a very large group of people in the United States who take the bible as completly and literally true. For example they believe the Great Flood actually happened and there were dinosaurs on Noahs Ark. These people almost always do not believe in evolution. Many call it "eviloution"

Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Science proves that dinosaurs never lived at the same time as humans...

Or not...

In the US many believe in Creationalism over Science and Evolution.

On the contrary, I live in my wine cellar. Sensory overload is the norm. Add my fabulous cooking, and my prowess at ...(I'd better stop here).

Google Paluxy River

I think the real question is not whether chess can be solved, but can this thread ever end?

I just can't imagine the purpose of solving chess. For instance, try to imagine a labyrinth the size of a football field, and then multiply it a million times... It is just beyond human capacity unless the future of chess is computer aided play which IMHO will be the beginning of the end of Chess itself.

It is obvious that Dinosaurs and humans have never coexisted. One has to deny a lot more than just evolution. BTW, a funny word eviloution, :-).

Fossiles tend to lie in stone layers that are formed within specific processes. When you go back to the fossiles of the Carbon era for instance, then can you see that it takes a lot of time and pressure to create charcoal (with fossiles in it). Those fossiles necessarily had to be living at the same time as the formation of the charcoal, hence millions of years ago.

A lot of birds and dinosaurs are found fossilized in slate. Slate used to be clay, that is transformed into stone after millions years of pressure. Same story, a creature can not fossilize in slate unless it lived at that time too.

The beautiful example of the river in Texas is that exception to the rule. If the whole evidence of living Dinosaurs and humans living together is based on the affirmation of one fact, what is the level of proof that Dinosaurs and humans did not live together when that hypothesis is based on thousands of affirmative facts?

Sad to say, we will be the dinosaurs unearthed in a million years.

Not really an exception. Rather, a hoax created by sloppy efforts to comprehend something that is not at all what it seemed to Creationists. I do remember watching a propaganda film in 1980 put out by the Institute of Creation Research. Geologists who visited the Paluxy River were able to shred every claim in that deceptive film.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html 

Yes, Paluxy River was a hoax. And of course dinos and other animals could not have fit on the ark.

I have not known mansfred very well. My English is not very good because I am not a native. But, I think we go by the same approach, mathematical point and proof.

Evidence is important to some extent, but to draw the ultimate conclusion there must be an ultimate proof.

I can draw some conclusion from some evidence, but that's not the ultimate conclusion. There is some part of the conclusion which is missing.

Say you present your evidence to 1000 ppl, there could be one or two who have different opinion.

But with ultimate proof, ppl who deny it must present a contradiction proof. Without it, it stands as an ultimate "truth" that is undeniable until a contradiction proof is presented.

I don't deny climate change and biological science. In fact, I study them from mathematical point of view: applied mathematics.

We use evidence in mathematics such as statistics. We must make assumptions based on evidence. If the assumptions are wrong, then the whole calculation is meaningless.

The results based on assumptions are only valid as long as the assumptions are a match with the condition. Hence it is not an ultimate result.

Say Newton's law. There is some condition that must be met to use the law, otherwise the results are not correct. Einstein and many others have make some improvement on it based on different assumptions and conditions.

What my point is that we must use evidence very carefully. We rely on some evidence based on some observation. The results could be off target. Hence we use regressions and other tools and treat those variations as noise.

Noise can't be ignored.

With statistics, 10000 draws and 1 win can be approximated by 10000 draws and treat 1 win as noise. It's just approximation.

But if you say 10001 draw that is incorrect. It's still 10000 draws and a win.

So my conclusion chess is draw is an approximation, but the statement of chess is draw is unproven. Hence chess could be won.

The "right circumstances" is conditions that must be met in order for the forced win. Until then, I don't know what they are.

It is simple, human beings are imperfect, therefore chess will not be solved

Indyfilmguy

I am not trying to solve chess. There is no way I could comletely solve a game with zillions of possible positions.  Actually, I think it will never be solved as there are too many possibilities.

I do not know of a FIDE master guy who got banned right after he reported progress.  Progress on what? What guy?

However even though we cannot 100% solve chess we can look at evidence which may or may not lead to one conclusion. right now all the evidence points to one conclusion.

There are some who say chess is unsolved so they do not even have a guess if chess is a draw?  Then there are some who say chess is unsolved but they can look at the evidence and all the evidence points the same way.

Chess could be won.

Before Edison invented "Electricity", people use kerosene lamps. Soon after  LED lamps are invented, they replace traditional lamps.

CD and DVD replace traditional recording media such as cassettes.

Now to chess. Some ppl may argue that "Chess is a Draw" based on evidence. As soon as the solution of "chess is a win" is discovered, then all the evidence about "chess is a draw" is invalid.

Because as soon as "Chess is a win" is discovered, all the draws can be replaced by wins. That's why "Chess is a Draw" based on evidence is a fallacy.

bean_Fisher the evidence points one way.  It does not prove chess is a draw 100%.  But when all the evidence points one way it is a heck of a good indication. 

Sure if some game is discovered that is a forced win for White from the start position then that would undo all the current evidence.  However 100 billion games have already been played as so far not one game has been discovered that is a forced win for White.

It is not logical to discount evidence on the basis that all of a sudden the grandmasters were wrong and a game might be discovered which might refute the evidence.

Chess is a draw based on evidence is not being claimed. As the game of chess is not solvable 100%.  what is being claimed is all the evidence points to chess being a draw with best play.