I don't think we should be arguing about this at all. As soon as we 'solve' a game it loses its status as a game. You see, once we know the 'perfect' game we have ruined it and it has turned from a game to a simple test of 'who can remember the best move' . We have ruined a 1,600 year old game. The whole point of chess is, yes, to get better, to win but also to HAVE FUN. By making every game solved we just lose a game and turn it into a fight of memory. We get so obsessed by it. It's only a game. It's not that deep man.
If chess would be solved there would be no more use for chess engines.
Chess might get solved by game states, using statistics and probabilities.
> Imagine a library with a lot of books. How many? Well, all possible books!
> Here's a fun game, what book title would you choose if you had to choose one book only?
Hey @RuyLopez1000 ,
I didn't understand your point with this question, is this suppose to be a tricky one? Choosing a title is easy because anything is a title (up to an x amount of characters), right?
In chess, complexity is rarely one-sided. If you play a move that creates a "mess" to provoke an opponent's blunder, you are often entering a position where you are also more likely to blunder on the very next turn.
This is the "Double-Edged Sword" of the true PV lines to follow. Engine's have probably hit on the most critical risk of complexity heuristics: Mutual Complexity. This is where we enter the world of over 80% draws.
Chess is often played by risk-aversion.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125003373