@Jokey Are you just gonna post pointless comments or what?
What will happen if chess got solved?

"And yes, chess engines, while not yet perfect, are in fact getting closer and closer to perfect play. That's sort of how it works. And guess what? As they have gotten better, draws between engines have become more and more of a certainty. That, along with other observations, is why someone is completely justified in believing that chess is drawn."
Another falsehood.
'completely justified'.
Also - you've completely missed the point that stronger engines beat weaker ones.
You haven't addressed that at all.
Nor the fallibility of engines in getting some positions completely wrong.
------------------
But it looks like tygxc has finally found an ally.
Someone trying to equate 'likely' with 'certain'.
------------------------------
Regarding Sveshnikov and him feeling 'power' to solve chess in five years -
I discovered in my research on him that apparently he was anti-vaxx and anti-mask.
Guess what killed him?
That's right. Covid.
These posts of mine addressed to everyone in the forum.
I have no intention of indulging IG in his desire for verbal tennis.
So no more addressing him in the first person.
He can 'take exception' and work the semantics if he chooses -
but prediction - he won't be able to compete with Optimissed at trolling.
You are not being fair. I don't equate likely with certain and I said as much. Perhaps my initial posts on the matter contained hyperbole and overstatement, but that's because I was reacting to the people acting as if it's literally "up for grabs" whether or not chess is a draw - almost as if we aren't at all justified in believing one thing or another about it, and that we have to reserve judgment and walk around like a bunch of true neutral nihilistic philosophers or something. And that is just false. We are justified in believing chess is a draw, because there is evidence to suggest it. Now I already conceded that we do not have absolute proof. If there is anyone on this thread that is claiming that chess is already solved, or that we have absolute proof of a draw, I have nothing to do with it.

Why is the forum post owner just spamming pointless comments instead of contributing to his own thread? And why is he asking questions like "Huh?" when the comments themselves explain everything?
Because he wants to keep bumping his own thread.
Though, with the amount of continual debating going on in here, there's no need to bump it ...

different theories discussed..
My theory - We use Solar Energy to run hundreds of powerful chess engines (Stockfish 16.1) And chess will be solved. We would not lose much electricity and will lead to a game being solved!

I don't think so. I didn't read every single comment, but I think it's been mentioned that because of the amount of moves and games possible, it will take a very long time, if not never, to solve chess. But idk really.

i told you PA, IG is not saying what u think he is saying. hes not like tygxc who thinks chess is proven to be a draw.

Chess will be a draw if both sides play the best move consistently, However to do that Chess will have to be solved! I'm with @tygxc
Chess will be a draw if both sides play the best move consistently, However to do that Chess will have to be solved! I'm with @tygxc
He's claiming chess is solved tho which is wrong..
Computers typically draw themselves every game the way to make them not do that is get a stronger engine

@Jokey
Chess will be a draw if both sides play the best move consistently, However to do that Chess will have to be solved! I'm with @tygxc
[Removed: Offensive] ~W
Fascinating to see people discuss.