Ok, so is the powerball lottery, lets see you win it...chess has far more variables than that. Don't give yourself so much credit, my cage is harder to rattle than you think.
The last part of your statement gives relevance to the statement I made in an earlier post about it not mattering if computers are able to solve chess, even the best grandmasters can't remember all of the variations.
...hit a nerve, did I?
Hey guys, I am not trying to kill chess...all I am saying is exactly what I said: FINITE.
Chess is not this mystical, unfathomable phenomenom like gravity or string-theory physics...it is a GAME.
An aquaintance of mine started playing this anti-theoretical opening 1. b4 and toured the country winning 100% in simultanious matches sometimes. Why? Is it because 1. b4 is the best move? Of course not. He won because he was a GRAND MASTER.
Yes, I agree. Chess has very many FINITE variables....and I am saddended to learn about the cage situation. I hope you are released soon into the daylight of understanding.
It should be noted that the top-rated player in the world got there without using computers very much, and his affiliation with Kasparov ended essentially because of his refusal to embrace Gazza's computer-oriented approach, and the weakest part of his game is generally considered to be his opening prep.
On the whole stronger players like having postmortems because recongise both sides learn and get better in the process. Weaker players are keener about hiding information, especially about openings, for competive reasons. The funny part is quite often they don't have anything worth keeping secret.
In the hole, after the game, all of the pieces go back in the box.