Chess will never be solved, here's why

Maybe, but he doesn't give any method of deciding how many or which.

He still doesn't apparenty have the courage of his convictions to produce the calculation I mentioned at the end of my post. It's a cornerstone of his five year plan.

@Optimissed continued:

"...Programmes use quantifiable calculations on which to base their results: therefore quantities that are zero are no longer quantities and are not useable by computers, regarding general calculations."

That was a most intriguing statement. I infer that @Optimissed's computer is faulty and is unable to do calculations that involve zero, and that he has wrongly come to the conclusion that all other computers are like that as well.

If so, it is good that this has come to light, as we can encourage him to get a replacement computer that is able to do calculations involving zero. If his computer is still under warranty, I would be of the opinion this fault would justify a replacement or a refund.

     Note that I also do not claim that my firm belief is proof positive, or that a complete investigation of ALL possibilities will not show that I am mistaken.

     "Proofs" that rely on judgements superior to mine but that do not take all possibilities into account will be less reliable than any that do.

Now be fair. He didn't say he never made mistakes, he just said you wouldn't be able to spot them. The former is unlikely, but the latter is a safe bet.

The man who never made a mistake never made anything, but the man who never made anything but mistakes probably didn't either.

     What the blazes is "personally certain"? I said I believed certain things to be true, this does make not them certainly true. If I had proclaimed that my beliefs were certain (OED: established as a truth or fact to be absolutely received, depended or relied upon; not to be doubted, disputed or called into question), that would have been pretentious. I admit that my strong belief does NOT establish anything as proven for certain.

     Remember that for millennia the entire human race, wise men, scientists, religious authority, everyone was "personally certain" that the earth was a fixed point at the center of creation and the sun, moon and stars revolved around us. Is such a belief still certainly true. At leadt they were right about the moon.

     I did NOT say that that I am CERTAIN that  1.e4  e5  2.Ba6  is lost for white. You might have actually read my post that you quoted, then you would have seen that I said as much. A belief is not the same as certainty. Where has it been proved that that opening sequence leads to certain defeat?

     It would help if you would use correct English. However strong your (or my) belief may be, it is NOT an established fact, something not to be called into question. You only need notice that there more than 5000 posts here to see that these points ARE in dispute.

     Your malicious insinuation that I may be a drunkard is reprehensible and seems to put you into the camp of unpleasant trolls you complain are creating a poor environment here. I had plenty of disputes with Coolout so I am familiar with those who misquote me, put words into my mouth, and bandy outrageous insults.

     That's your answer? Those who don't accept your "superior" acuity must have a degree of insanity? Or do you mean I'm just angry? Imprecise language is a bad habit into which you too often lapse.

I can see your wry smile from over here...

@5304

"I did NOT say that that I am CERTAIN that  1.e4  e5  2.Ba6  is lost for white."
++ I am CERTAIN that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white.
White loses material and all other factors are equal. There is no compensation of any kind.

"Where has it been proved that that opening sequence leads to certain defeat?"
++ As proven before: it is a forced checkmate in 82.

"it is NOT an established fact, something not to be called into question."
++ It IS an established fact, not to be called into question indeed.

"You only need notice that there more than 5000 posts here to see that these points ARE in dispute." ++ Some trolls dispute even the light of day, apparently for the fun of it.

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and thus is NOT optimal play by both opponents.
Hence it has no place in solving chess.

Chess can be solved in 5 years, but not if people make it a million times more complicated,
then it takes 5 million years, as they like it.

Unfortunately your proof in #5308 is clearly flawed. Black can't checkmate and lose.

It should be:

You probably overlooked the fact that 3...Ke7 is a perfect move. You need to remember that any move in a losing position is perfect.

Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

@5312
3...Ke7?? is a blunder, turns a won position into a lost position.

Ke7 is very probably a blunder, except technically in the unlikely (but not logically impossible) case that the Ba6 sacrifice is winning. Even I find it difficult to be pedantic about this, but I am epistemologically obliged to be.

@5316
That is not probable, it is sure. After 2 Ba6? white loses by force: checkmate in 82.
3 Qh5 is not worse than 3 Nf3: both moves lose.
3...Ke7?? is a sure blunder or double error: turns the won position into a lost position.
Epistemologically is a pedantic word for trolling.

You are sure. People are sure about many things, some of which are not true (including many that are reasonable but where they are later surprised).

The proposition itself is agnostic and, while an excellent hypothesis, unproven.

You are self-mocking by stating that it is a "checkmate in 82".

We'll find out when @tygxc solves chess.

Um, sorry scratch that - he's not going to solve that bit.

You overlooked it again.

Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?

But quicker is not perfecter.