>>22552336Okay if chess is just a more complicated version of Tic-Tac-Toe, why don't we extrapolate and conclusion that optimal playing will end in a draw for Chess as well, since hey, it's just a more complicated version of Tic-Tac-Toe.
Oh but then you're going to say we haven't calculated it yet, okay then why haven't we? Surely with the technology we have today someone could calculate the optimal play and determine the result. But the thing is that there are three answers to this, optimally playing for both sides will end in a draw, it will end for a win on White, or it will end for a win on Black; if there is chance involved then it's not the fucking optimal play, but if optimal play will end with one side winning, that will mean there is an optimal counter-play to make the other side win, but that then means that there are counter-counter plays and so forth, meaning that it's not the optimal play. Ergo the only true optimal play with doth sides playing will end in a draw.
But here's the kicker, why play if you know it'll end in a draw, thus people won't use it. Why? because it's predictable and readable. Now I know you're going to say the optimal play can't be predicted, but that would mean you would have to play wildly to be unpredictable, and playing unpredictably is not optimal.
Basically you need to stop talking out your ass.
