Chess will never be solved, here's why

     Yet you repeated it without noticing. Not a great advertisement for your self-proclaimed superior intelligence and reasoning ability. 

     Amazing how many times in different forums here my stock has plummeted in your eyes yet still seems to have a long way to go to reach bottom. Also interesting how everyone who fails to acknowledge your superiority thereby reveals themselves to be a troll, a feeble intellect, a hateful, bitter malcontent, or whatever other sort of low-life you think up.

     Your difficulty seems to be that your overwhelming superiority in every area somehow fails to manifest itself clearly to everyone else. Perhaps you should "dumb down" your pronouncements so they will be more intelligible to the rest of us normal humans. And really, does a superior man such as yourself truly need to resort to insults and name-calling so often?

     "I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member"--Groucho Marx

Lol, why am I angry, or scared?  Because I made a joke about Finland at your expense?

If you are reading strong emotions into my writings then you haven't been reading me for very long.  Various trolls have attempted many, many times over the past decade to get me to "blow up" and go on some profanity-laced tirade, and it has never come anywhere close to happening. 

Coming from you, a claim of incoherence is hollow.

@4311
"There are many positions where a player can be down a piece and not losing" ++ True

"saying that it's different because there's no compensation is not enough,
because it assumes you, or someone knows every type of compensation"
++ If there is any doubt, then calculate further or play on.
If there is no doubt, then end the calculation or resign.
There is no point in continuing a game after losing a piece, people resign over the board and in ICCF even more. For that same reason there is no point in calculating a whole tree with all possible ways to lose after blundering a piece.
I provided prove above that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82.
There is a clear difference between blundering a piece and sacrificing for some compensation.
Whether some compensation is enough or not is for the calculation to decide.
With no compensation of any kind, losing a piece or losing a pawn means losing by force.

But your "prove" is even worse than your grammar.

Claiming such a proof is simply dishonest. You don't believe it's valid any more than anybody else. You're just hoping if you provide no link to it people won't find it.

People resign because they don't see a way they can win the position. That doesn't mean there isn't a way to win the position.

I thought that "prove" was a joke by someone jesting about @tygx's claims.

On a different matter, @Optimissed says that the test of the evaluation of a position is how two players of similar standard do from that position.

No. This often gives an indication of the correct evaluation, but it can also easily be that the position is two difficult for the players. Take a simple position - KBN v K - and you will find that two weaker players tend to draw it more than they get to a mate in 50 moves (and I am not talking about very weak here - this ending is difficult for club players of above average standard unless they have put in the effort to learn it). Some endings are so much more difficult that you need a very strong player to get the right result.

It is safe to say there are _much_ harder positions with more pieces on the board. Too hard for all humans.

@4337
"People resign because they don't see a way they can win the position."
++ Players resign when they have no hope at all of drawing a position.
Weak players might accidently resign in a position they can draw or even win.
Among strong players that does not happen.
Among ICCF correspondence players it does not happen at all.
They resign when a position is clearly lost.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a clearly lost position.
It is pointless to further analyse a clearly lost position.

Yes. Having no hope isn't the same as losing by force. I can be down a queen but have a forced mate in 20, if I don't see it then I'll just resign the game, because I have no hope of winning or drawing. Resigning the game doesn't mean it's lost by force.

This is just a narrative you tell yourself to maintain your illusions.  It allows you to fool yourself into thinking not only that you are smartest person in the room, but also the most enlightened, magnanimous, etc.  It reeks out of everything you post, and it's a bit sad.

As for "very many others", that's a statement that is in line with your "hundreds and hundreds posters attacked" delusion.

More narrative.

The difference between us is that I don't care if I am the smartest person in the room, only that the people *in* the room are afforded the possibility of expressing their opinions on an even footing without somebody summarily telling them they are all on some lower plane. in order to assuage their own ego...

Don't ICCF games get defaulted if a player dies? If so, any ICCF player who thinks there is no hope in a game is ignoring reality.

Nice! Let me bring my potassium cyanide to the tournament tomorrow!

Don't worry, it's only in case I'm losing.

Quote some.

Your definition of "attack" includes anything that you find objectionable.  Since you find anyone that observes the slightest fault with anything you say objectionable...

You can connect the dots.

One thing I will cop to is that objectionable people in general often find me objectionable.

@Optimissed, as I (honestly) see it, while earlier you said about 1.e4 e5 2. Bh6. that "it's a win by best play and the fair test is to have equal contestants", you are now saying this is not a test that can provide any hard results about a general position (which is true), but it does work for 1.e4 e5 2. Bh6 because you already know the answer.

Also, my earlier point was that if you rely on the results of a player who is incapable of getting the result against the strongest chess player possible to tell you the value of a position, then, by definition, you are saying you are making inferences from results that depend on the opponent making errors. (I assert this is so for a typical amateur playing against 1. e4 e5 2. Bh6).

Don't get me wrong here. I would say that it is true that the results between equal players of some given standard from a chosen position are strongly correlated with the true evaluation of that position. This is because, in some crude sense, errors tend typically to occur randomly to either side. But it is very clear that there are positions where such a result would be entirely misleading (a close approximation to 100%, 50% or 0% while the true result was something different to what this would suggest). Wouldn't you agree? The simplest way this can happen is if there is a crucial path to the best result which is easily missed and inferior paths which are usually taken.

[Also, in the extreme, errors tend to swamp the true value of a position. Give two beginners positions with one of them having an extra piece and the results will be nearer 50% than 100% for the side with more material, IMO].

Any ICCF player who thinks there is no hope in a game is ignoring reality whatever the state of their opponent's health. Well over 90% of those games are agreed drawn in positions where neither side knows what the theoretical result is.

I don't think anyone believes Elroch is the one confused here.

Yes they do. @Optimissed does.