The flawed, and highly obfuscated, chess-specific paper states:

BAD paper wrote:We will show that a natural generalization of chess to nxn boards is complete in exponential time, the first such result for a "real" game. This implies that for any k ~ l , there are infinitely many positions ~ such that any algorithm for deciding whether White (Black) can win from that position requires at least cI~l k time-steps to compute, where c > 1 is a constant, and l~I is the size of ~ Generalized chess is thusprovably intractable...

...but that paper is 100% dependent on another paper (which I had to find for myself, despite asking over and over - but no matter!), and that paper, a very clearly higher quality paper, states:

GOOD paper wrote:The main purpose of this paper is to prove that the decision problems for certain simple combinatorial games are complete in exponential time with respect to efficient reducibility.

See the difference?

Oh, and are you willing toadmitthat you were actually wrong about something? For example, your claim that "we know that there is no forced win of material in the first 30 moves". (I know you will now be trying to be "smart" and once again ask for an example of a forced material win, but that just shows you are either trolling or have no facility for logical reasoning.)

Following the discussion, I now agree that 30 is too high - but I didn't make the claim strongly (link).