Will Chess ever be "solved"?

Well, if you presume that white can force black to play a position that guarantees a win or draw for white, then you presume that chess is solved. 

#139
No, I believe chess is a draw, like Fischer said. However, to consider chess solved a mathematical proof is required such as for checkers.

It may not seem like it but there is a limit of all number of possible games, which can be played differently.

In some positions you may seem free to move back and forth but it still is not allowed forever. 

In here for example kings can do free moves back and forth but there is a 50 move rule. And the pawn has to move forward once for every 49th move. So movement count is limited.. too many but limited.

So even we are not able to calculate how many possible moves can be played on a chess game maximum.. it is still not infinite.

Computers will one day have enough memory and cpu power to chart all possible moves and then store them in a hard drive and index them. And there will be no need to re-compute them for every game. It just will input your played moves and will choose the best continuing path which results in victory..

May be when you’ve been here more than a few days, you will realize that @btickler is one of very few members who consistently posts sense instead of nonsense.

Also, I think you have not fully grasped how people view your avatar. Some of this stems from the avatars of others, which you have no control over. Context matters. This site gets a lot nefarious types who use avatars to push racial ideology, sexual provocation, political agendas, etc.

Also note that nothing that FirstMarch said about his meme choices etc. excludes intent.  My assessment also involved his tirade about Nikki, his other posts, his tagline, etc.

Here's the PM he sent me, blocking me so I could not reply...it's your typical "my dad can beat up your dad" kind of drivel involving wild claims about his own success and assumptions about my own:

"Hey! Just thought I would get my final thoughts out here since the rational and normal people got the topic back on track, while your ego is too hurt to let things go and continue to talk back to me as if you had any chance of 'winning' or changing what I (and many others) think about you—a sad, senile man who has way too much time on his decrepit hands with 10k+ forum posts, and thinks too highly of himself when the opposite is needed.

Thanks for admitting that you're old and retired! It's so hilarious, I had reasonable suspicion that it was the case, since so many things pointed to it. Like I said, it would do you best to stick to your own lane, and know your place. Maybe go live in a cabin somewhere in the woods and live out your final days, as you're no longer needed in society. And no, posting 10k+ times on a chess forum ultimately won't be able to fill that void that you seemingly have.

By the way, maybe your ego won't allow you to believe this, but my life is better than yours have ever been, or ever will be. Financially, socially, intellectually, athletically, romantically, and most importantly, I still have my youth! I'm in my 20's and I probably make more than your entire family. Like I've suggested over and over again, be more humble! Maybe if you stop being pretentious and pompous on a chess website (on a second thought, seems like a likely place to find pathetic people like you), someone like me wouldn't have to put you in your place, adorable old man."

Now...you tell me...does this seem like someone that *might* be overly prejudicial towards others?

This part is the best ...

"By the way, maybe your ego won't allow you to believe this, but my life is better than yours have ever been, or ever will be. Financially, socially, intellectually, athletically, romantically, and most importantly, I still have my youth! I'm in my 20's and I probably make more than your entire family. Like I've suggested over and over again, be more humble!

Sounds like a famous former leader that was an embarrassment to those he led. Delusional.

It does doesn't it?...but the various phrasing and other telltale markers are missing.  It would have to be more like: 

"Let me tell you something, nobody has a life like mine.  It's the best life.  The best.  Second to none.  Better than yours could ever be.  My financial empire, the celebrities I know, my genius IQ, my small-handed dexterity, my ability to grab women with impunity, and most importantly, I am healthy...look at my skin!  Maybe you should be more humble, like me."

no idea wot you talk about

Really, all you ever seem to do in life is try to put people down. And then you accuse them of attacking you, like as not. Anyone who thinks you post more sense than nonsense is definitely delusional.

<<<May be when you’ve been here more than a few days, you will realize that @btickler is one of very few members who consistently posts sense instead of nonsense.>>>

?

You are another about whom I could make that claim. Doesn't mean that I always agree with you either. 

For instance, your attack on @btickler in this post seems a bit hypocritical.

When I am saying it is a known draw, i am saying it is mathematically proven draw due to proof by exhaustion.

It's funny how you never seem to be able to see anything but me.

- Poster jumps on another out of the blue

- I point out hypocritical elements of attack

- Exchanges ensue, in which I am usually the more restrained, as in this case.

But somehow all you ever see is me attacking somebody for apparently no reason whatsoever .  I think it is because you are used to being snarky, and so you see me confronting someone about a snarky post as some kind of interference with every poster's right to be that way without repercussions...I instead feel like people deserve to see themselves in a mirror once in while to keep them honest.

Re-read this post to Nikki (whom I don't know from Adam, by the way): 

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-chess-ever-be-solved-1?page=6#comment-61106933

"Not only are you so condescending, but you are so wrong as well. [snip] you're a freak pretending to be a woman on a chess website."

And this:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-chess-ever-be-solved-1?page=6#comment-61107069

"One look at your profile (fake pic off a google search and that hideous "look at me I'm a girl!" pink background) [snip] you're a weird freak pretending to be something you're not."

And then read my rather tame by comparison confronting post, then realize that "Nikki" has not posted since, but FirstMarch seems to be doing fine, tossing out his vitriol with abandon .  

You don't have to agree with my confronting such people, but FirstMarch is not the victim here.

It would take forever for Computers to get to this position by analyzing, "Best Moves Possible" in order.

there's no way this is all best moves. Played between two bots rated -769 and -744.

     Apparently Optimissed missed the point--btickler was just poking fun at First March's ridiculous boasting about how wonderful and superior and humble he is.

It's also amusing because he quoted the second post, which is actually pointing out some fairly obvious dialogue markers for a certain orange politician well known for *attacking everything* when he speaks.

Seems like he's right in essence though. You're still talking about him in this thread way after that message was sent. He hit the mark while still being a troll. You're taken the bait and you're staying on the line for way too long because your ego's hurt. So hurt that you decided to leak a private message to keep talking about it in an unrelated thread. I was having fun reading the posts on this topic but now the thread has grown a tumor.

Also, I'm just a neutral bystander, but Nikki did start it first with those passive aggressive remarks.

I didn't "leak" anything .  If someone I know sends me a message I will hold it in confidence...messages like that, not for a moment.  As an adult I am not coercible via schoolyard stuff like "no squealing".   

Not sure why you're saying it's an unrelated thread since the whole thing took place right here...then again, if I had posted the PM in a completely new thread, you'd be telling me now how awful *that* was...FirstMarch jumped on something he didn't like that was still related to the topic, and went after a poster in a very off-topic way, so you can lay the tumor at his doorstep.

You're no neutral bystander if you think that Nikki's bravado in this case warranted being labelled a "freak" repeatedly.  You're also no neutral bystander if you think FirstMarch hit the mark .  

P.S. Everything has taken place within the past 24 hours, so the "way after" aspersion...?  Not so much. 

1. No, you did leak it no matter how you spin it. This is objectively true. 

2. It is unrelated. This is also objectively true. To be honest, I don't care who started it in your perspective. Nikki has been quite patronizing to other posters before your archenemy's first post in the thread. In my eyes all three of you are in the wrong, but you're the last person remaining still talking about it. That's why I said he hit the mark, as it appears as if you just have to get the last word in. You look petty.

3. My mistake, I guess it's not way after. I did not pay attention to the timestamps of the posts.