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

For instance, the fact that White scores about 55% ?

As for discussing your "evidence", I do not want to go into another word quibbling, you got 50+ pages of thread for that.

Who perceives the problem, has the solution in his hands. Please prevent that from happening. :-)

Great link! Years ago I saw a documentary about this river. People were suggesting that the clay had 'unstoned' when people were passing by. Always remembered that, but with a question mark in my mind. How was that possible, because that process of fossilizing mud into stone is supposed to be irreversible? Traces of bipede dinosaurs is a far more logical answer.  Thank you.

We cannot prove chess is a draw, but the way chess works is very well understood already.  There is not enough unknown about chess to raise reasonable doubt that chess is a draw with perfect play.

We can't prove it, but it's unreasonable to believe otherwise.

Although because this is page 37, I'm sure this has been said already.  It seems to me though that this is all that needs to be said.

It is true that White scores about 55% but it is also true that in virtually all major openings White's small opening advantage disipates over time.

If you want to say White scores about 55% and that could be an indication the game of chess is a win for White.  But that is swamped by the counter evidence.

Look at it this way. There is no opening where White even wins 50% of the time.

The Creationists believe if they can refute the Theory of Evolution that their theories will win by default but that is not true.  There is a whole lot of other nutty theories to compete with Creationism.

@holyhamster: with what is the fact consistent?

Let say player A wins from player B. Player B has the higher rating, even after the loss. What is consistent with what?

That A is a better player then B, because he has won from B?

That B is a better player then A, because he has a higher rating then A?

The oldest tangible proof of the Flintstones appeared in 1960. That is several thousands years after the arch of Noach and more then one hundred years after the first theories about creationism. How do we know that it is not a hoax like the Texas river? I don't say that Hannah Barbara was lying, but that you are overstretching the evidence.

Next you are going to say is that Jurassic Park is also inline with creationism. And Frankenstein.

If we are going to argue like that, then will we never know if chess is going to be solved.

Evolution is a theory as gravity is a theory: both account for known facts and have done so through test after test for a great many years.

Creationists thrive by confusing words like theory. Their non-testable hypotheses can only replace scietific theory when science no longer has any claim to knowledge.

Creationism (and Intelligent Design) are not theories. Not even close.

I will concede that the Flintstones offers an intriguing line of inquiry. If some Creationists seize upon it, they might put forth a testable hypothesis.

These sorts of statements lead me to believe that you're producing satire. Are you making fun of Al Gore?

Edison did not invent electricity. Neither did Ben Franklin. Nor did either one discover it. Franklin demonstrated that a charge could pass along a kite string. He also wrote about chess.

Edison worked on light bulbs. Many people had made lightbulbs that could use electricity to light a room. But they remained costly and inefficient. Many would provide light for only a few seconds. Edison created an industrial research laboratory--the first of its type. His laboratory found a way to make light bulbs that were cheap and lasting. He made electric light economically feasible.

Happily for Rockefeller, whose fortune stemmed from kerosene. the work of others on internal combustion made another sort of gas valuable. His fortune grew despite the success of Edison's project.

No I didn't know. Can you tell me your story?

Agree. And Bill Gates doesn't create windows, Apple did.

#1. The evidence can be wiped out once chess is solvable.

#2. I don't discount evidence. Based on regression analysis or other tools available chess is approximately a draw.

#3. But chess is a draw is also a fallacy since #1.

We have a decision to make. And it's a hard one. It also happens in other area especially engineering and math. Do we trust our observation? Or do we have to find a proof?

What if the decision is wrong?

But you have made up your mind that chess is draw and deny any other posssibilities.

Apple didn't create windows, Xerox PARC did.

The oldest windows in North America are in Chaco Canyon.

I will try my best...all kneel.

No love for Steinmetz around here, eh?  I'd have to give him much more credit than Edison for making electric lighting cost effective.

...and then the Xerox executives, oblivious to what they actually had there, essentially handed it over to Steve Jobs (along with the mouse, which originated there as well).

I don't know what the big argument is all about. Chess is, of course, a forced win for white--here's how: If I play white and point a gun at your head, of course I'm going to win!

Chess will be solved before xiangqi,then shogi,weiqi.Weiqi is the last game to be solved.

Best play: black wins in the mainline Najdorf because he has opposition in the ensuing king and pawn ending. 

There's an old saying the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it's usually a golden mean fallacy.  Well, slave states remaining slave states but new states being free is an example!  Jim Crow was also this fallacy.  "Clean" coal?  No.  Gas?  No!  Solar?  Hell yes!  Creationism?  No.  Theistic evolution?  No.  Evolution with no religion attached?  Yes! 

"I watched a show on a paranormal issue, and I personally think the truth is somewhere in between" Eeeeh, WRONG!  The truth isn't between the believers and skeptics, it remains wholly with the skeptics.  Ghosts, prayer,aliens, etc., have all failed to pass rigorous epistomolgical filters.

Why compromise when you're correct?