🚀 go-pugleaf

xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>But I propose that we will always either take the draw option or continue
>out of the loop using the following reasoning:
>One of the assumptions we make is that our opponent, when given the
>chance to force a win, will, and if not, will force a draw if possible...

Well, of course!  Once you ASSUME this, the rest is trivial.  The point
was that an additional assumption is NEEDED.

>Consensus has everything to do with it...  We must have rules before we
>may prove or disprove the solvability of chess...  and since the rules
>of FIDE and USCF (to my knowledge) do not cover what happens in an
>'infinite' game, we should set this rule down before we can continue with
>the analysis.  Since humans are interested in finite-length games of
>chess (when playing each other), I think we could arrive at a consensus
>that any position that is repeated infinitely constitutes a forced draw.

Perhaps you are giving up too easily.  There is still a lot of interesting
analysis that can be done without adding to the set of rules.  Once you
decide to add to the rules, there are lots of ways to do it.  Whether
a consensus is used, or an edict from a Federation, it doesn't much
matter.  The point has very little practical value anyway.  The 
argument has been about whether the current rules allow for chess to
be solved.  I think it has been proven well enough that the game
is solvable.  My point has been that the rigorous solution is not as
"simple" as some people have been claiming.

>But I'll try to contain my analysis to the case where this rule does not
>apply, since I think I can show solvability on your ground.

Please do.  If you look through the previous posts you will find
the proof.  I have not been claiming that chess is insolvable, just that
the solution is a function of a large (but finite) number of
undetermined parameters.