...Go for it.
I never said "I think chess will be solved within our lifetimes." Like so much else in your message, you like to invent nonsense, and seem to base your arguments on hyperbole and fantasy.😊
I have to apologize Vickylan...you never did state that explicitly. You also never said 50 years. You actually gave a bunch of ridiculous calculations and claimed it could be done in 18 years...check page 61. You stated on 2 other occasions that chess could be solved in the next couple of decades. Later you effectively recanted and said 200 years, with ironically even more specious reasoning, on page 109. Since then you have kept your number to yourself for close to 100 pages. What that shows anyone paying attention is that (A) you were full of crap to begin with, (B) you later realized you were full of crap but never admitted it, and (C) that now you have given up on even standing behind your retreat to 200 years number. Because...you know you are wrong. Just admit it.
I do apologize for giving you credit for 50 years when you believed an even more unreasonable 18-20.
Some of your quotes, in chronological order:
"On the other hand, if best play is a draw, chess won't be solved until the entire tree is checked. So we can only expect an answer in our lifetime if one side can force a win. But if perfect play is a draw, we probably won't know it within our lifetime."
"Checkers has been solved. Chess is a big leap, but it could happen within a decade or two."
"As for solving chess, there is some reason to believe it can happen within a decade or two."
"So chess might be able to be solved in 18 years."
"These are other advances that will help solve chess, compared to computers in 2007 when checkers was solved. I agree with Campter: Yes - chess may soon be solved."
"If I must make a guess, I would say Yes chess will be solved within 200 years or so."
The next time you claim "invented nonsense" or hyperbole on whatever subject, hopefully people will remember your blatant falsehood here.
For fun:
You posted your silly tree diagrams on pages 65, 68, 116, 117, 127, and 145.
You posted your triangle diagram on pages 165 and 182.
You posted your Venn diagram on pages 146 and 184.
You posted your moving a sofa animated GIF on page 176...you haven't repeated yourself on that one yet.
Chess.com community guidelines states that you shouldn’t be offensive.
. When a certain online chess site improves their forums to match their online play, this place is toast. That's the sad truth.
Will there ever be a computer strong enough to solve chess to the point where white uses its half tempo advantage to always beat black no matter what moves black plays (in otherwords the same computer can never win with black even after a thousand random games against itself)
I beleive one day there will be a computer so strong and so big that it will solve chess completely but perhaps that is 50 or 100 years off, its possible to solve it but we may never see it even in a 100 years
the answer is no.The reason being that there are 20 possible first moves alone meaning the outc ok me can not be certain.
I have certainly been in the "no" camp, and maybe I still am, but I don't think you can say this so clearly.
In particular, if you think there are 10^120 possible games, which is more games than atoms in the universe, then that would appear to be a clear "no."
But if you realize there actually are only 10^45 positions, which is LESS (not MORE as some have claimed) than the atoms just in the earth, then all of a sudden you don't have a certain "no" anymore. But you do have something prohibitively hard, and probably beyond practical reach by normal computers, because you simply lack the resources to do it, now and most likely ever.
But what Elroch has pointed out to me just today is that I was missing a point about quantum computers, thinking their power scaled as N^2 when in fact they scale as 2^N (where N is the number of qubits) ... and that really might be a big enough difference to change the answer.
Other aspects of the problem might still lead to the answer being "no," but it's much less clear than I thought or than you are making it.