Have you ever created anything without a solution?

Being the realist I am I evade a great deal of abstract ideas in my strategies. They are thorough and logical depending on the situation. You can invent fun things that have no definitive answer. I do not believe Chess is one of them since the A.Is and humans can win with Black. Essentially White has to make a mistake for Black to win. White always does what Black is doing with half a tempo in advance. I am creating a fun game of mine with solutions since Chess is clearly a solved game.

And did not our man Pragg recently win with some sort of f5 in the candidates as Black? If there is a God of Chess maybe I already met him. Make no mistake.

@Clearchesser said in #1:
> Chess is clearly a solved game.

Cite source or proof?

@Approximation said in #2:
> Cite source or proof?

My opponent resigned instead of playing it out to a possible different outcome. I suppose they could have let me checkmate them, yet I can tickle your fancy on the subject in a moment.

My chess style

Until the chess gods tell me otherwise I'll believe white begins in Zugzwang. Also, the half move symetries are broken by checks.

@Clearchesser said in #3:
> My opponent resigned instead of playing it out to a possible different outcome. I suppose they could have let me checkmate them, yet I can tickle your fancy on the subject in a moment.

But it's in a single game, not in whole chess

@MercuryTrismegistus said in #5:
> Until the chess gods tell me otherwise I'll believe white begins in Zugzwang. Also, the half move symetries are broken by checks.

1. Nf3. Does Reti remove the Zugzwang. Also, a bishop has the ability to lose a move. Are you saying White wins the game if he lets Black catch up? Not in my experience. I hope there is a definitive answer.

@Clearchesser

I suppose white could forstall his loss by moving horsey back and forth. But black could play that too. With the 3-position repition rule this would be a draw. Without the draw rule I believe white's starting position is utterly lost at the point of infinity.

I still await a definitive answer from the chess gods. I grow tired of our flawed mortal musings.

Oh man. Imagine if in a million years we invent computers that can play perfectly. We switch them on and anxiously await 'The Game'. Then they just move horsey back and forth 3 times and shake robot hands.

@Clearchesser said in #1:
> You can invent fun things that have no definitive answer. I do not believe Chess is one of them

You are correct, chess does indeed have a solution. If it didn't, then there must exist some position where multiple results could happen with optimal play from both sides, which is clearly a contradiction.

> since the A.Is and humans can win with Black.

There is no need for anecdotal evidence when the proof I have provided is simple and rigorous (I have sacrificed some rigorousness for simplicity, but one could certainly come up with a more rigorous proof if one wished). Furthermore, I don't see how this is even evidence in support of your statement.

> Essentially White has to make a mistake for Black to win. White always does what Black is doing with half a tempo in advance.

Okay, so you are saying that chess engines and humans are imperfect. This is true. I don't see what this has to do with chess having a solution.

> I am creating a fun game of mine with solutions

What game is that? You only mentioned it once and then never said what it was.

> since Chess is clearly a solved game.

If you define "solved" as "has a solution," then yes, chess is "solved." But this is not what most people mean when they say "solved." If there is an empty crossword puzzle, most people would not consider it solved even if it does have a solution. Similarly, even though every chess position has optimal solutions, we do not know those solutions so chess is not solved by any reasonable definition.

Furthermore, you even support the fact that chess is not solved by saying that chess engines are fallible, since, you say, they can win with Black and White must make a mistake for Black to win (I am assuming an engine vs. engine match). This in itself does not prove that engines are fallible, because even though you say that White must make a mistake for Black to win, we do not know this with certainty, because chess is not solved. If, however, you created a position in which you had an engine play itself (say Stockfish), and got more than one result for different games, then this is proof that engines are fallible. Nevertheless, despite your lack of proof, your statement is still in support of the fact that chess is not solved, and then you directly contradict it by saying chess is "clearly" solved. Clearly there is some cognitive dissonance that you should probably address.