@International-Grandpatzer Your status makes you seem like a little kid, that's why. I wasn't trying to offend you. But I guess this teaches us that profiles don't reveal everything.
No worries. I guess my profile does seem a little silly. My profile pic is just something I googled, and the header quote is actually from a Jack Black movie (Nacho Libre). I will probably end up changing it.
Many would give up the game and start playing Go or checkers. There might also be mass suicides among some who are mentally ill.
Not at all!
One of the first chess books I owned declared that chess is a draw from the initial position. That's never been a question, for me.
The whole point of chess is seeing if you can play better than your opponent. Whether or not perfect engines draw against each other is rather irrelevant.
Your human opponent is not perfect - therefore, he will make mistakes. Your role is to try to play better than him - to be the last man standing, when the dust has settled. That's the whole fun and beauty of the game.
Many would give up the game and start playing Go or checkers. There might also be mass suicides among some who are mentally ill.
Not at all!
One of the first chess books I owned declared that chess is a draw from the initial position. That's never been a question, for me.
The whole point of chess is seeing if you can play better than your opponent. Whether or not perfect engines draw against each other is rather irrelevant.
Your human opponent is not perfect - therefore, he will make mistakes. Your role is to try to play better than him - to be the last man standing, when the dust has settled. That's the whole fun and beauty of the game.
I agree with some of that.
Bobby Fischer advanced an idea something like: 'if nobody makes a mistake then the game will end in a draw'.
Which isn't true because a player can lose on time on the clock.
But Bobby Fischer still isn't right even without the reality of the chess clocks that oversee every rated game.
---------------------
Much better put although longer would be: 'If neither player makes a big enough mistake or mistakes then the game will end in a draw unless somebody loses by the flag on their clock falling.'
or better yet:
'If neither player makes a big enough mistake or mistakes that the other player catches and can exploit sufficiently or that otherwise causes a loss then the game will end in a draw unless somebody either plays too slowly and loses on time or if play otherwise continues and whoever loses on time whether playing too slowly or just not as fast as the opponent.'
----------------------------
Some might argue that falling on time and playing too slowly are the same - but they're not.
-----------------------------
Main point: Making over-simplified generalizations is usually a mistake.
Not always though. 
Most generalizations need to be qualified and things like context and provisos and exceptions assigned ... otherwise so many of them then amount to dogmatisms and syllogisms and gremlins and the like.
Did that generalization by me also just get qualified by me?
Yes. And I say so with confidence but without the foolish trolling and narcissism exhibited by persons like Optimissed.
@International-Grandpatzer Your status makes you seem like a little kid, that's why. I wasn't trying to offend you. But I guess this teaches us that profiles don't reveal everything.
No worries. I guess my profile does seem a little silly. My profile pic is just something I googled, and the header quote is actually from a Jack Black movie (Nacho Libre). I will probably end up changing it.
AH ok, I see.
I don't think so
i Think chess is complex
Nah, it might be solved. Although, there is another forum post dedicated to that.
Maybe it was solved in another galaxy somewhere.
Within this Big Bang here.
Or in another galaxy in another Big Bang somewhere.
They won't solve it in the Big Bang in Hugh Hefner's mansion.
Optimissed just trolled again by namecalling.
Notice that he said 'thought' in the past tense.
In other words he woke up for a second and realized its him trolling.
Many many times he has threatened in a bullying way to report people.
While continuing his own trolling.
What would be good for more people to know is that he can be reported for such tactics.
When I pointed this out months ago he immediately stopped doing that ever since.
But he will always work his way back around to the same behaviours again.
---------------------------
There's a difference between saying somebody is trolling (criticizing behaviour) and calling them a troll.
Optimissed doesn't get it that every time he namecalls it is him trolling.
Constantly he calls members trolls and psychopaths and alt accounts.
He can be reported every single time he does that.
But most people including myself usually don't bother.
Why not? Because most people are simply not like him.
In other words - not fragile. Not delicate.
Hmm.
If chess gets solved ...
Probably nobody will care. Or very few.
Chess software engineers and other chess developers will pay some attention.
But their Big Buck$$ will not be affected. Or will be improved.
Chess and chessplaying would and will continue to occupy a very small percentage of the world population.
--------------------------
Do chessplayers outnumber the Flat-earthers of this world?
I think so. And the chessplayers are in better shape too.
But Geocentrists outnumber chessplayers by a lot it seems.
Even climate science deniers outnumber chessplayers.
Then every game (except bullet or blitz) will draw
Good post. Whether accurate or not.
Adding clocks to the game of chess has been a great idea.
It 'solves' many issues of the game.
Two words:
Quantum computing.
I don't think so
i Think chess is complex