You seem to be assuming some kind of "brute force" approach, where every possible move sequence is explicitly played out. But reasoning allows you to deal with large classes of positions all at once. For example, just knowing the remaining pieces - regardless of where they are on the board - is enough to tell you that certain endgame positions are a draw, or a win, etc. Maybe there's a way to classify midgame positions into a thousand or a million different cases, that allows chess to be solved. In that case, whether a computer can solve chess would depend on how smart its algorithm is.Chess is unsolvable with traditional computers
I call this tactic "dressing up the straw-man"Nobody, they would both resign on move 0 and fall back to negotiations...
You cant checkmate in one move.If you'd said you can't checkmate an opponent in one move, that would be different.
Understood it but didn't know what is was named, thanks.Are you familiar with the chess term zugzwang?
At present is simply unknown whether or not the starting position is a deep zugzwang for whoever moves first.
It could also be a deep zugzwang in favor of whoever moves second.Your argument simply has no logical force whatsoever.