Chess will never be solved, here's why

OK dimwit. Keep up the good work.

I just don't think you would ever dare writing an original thought, even if you had one. I don't believe you would ever stick your neck out if you didn't think you had backing. The fact that Elroch isn't properly addressing the thread subject area doesn't concern you. You wouldn't even know he isn't. All Elroch is doing is showing off his idealistic mindset, which enjoys abstract ideas that cannot be brought to bear on the subject matter. At least he gets it right when he writes something, even if it's entirely inapplicable. You're just all over the place. Incoherent, basically.

Difficult to tell the difference between dishonesty and disability. I can be confident of winning a simple position like bishop up on move two and I really don't need to give every possible line to convince someone who isn't very bright that it's a win.

I misinterpret because I interpret the comment for what it actually states instead of reading your mind that it's not actually what you mean? It doesn't make any more sense with the context than it does in general. You were trying to get a point across to Optimissed with faulty logic, I'm not even judging whos in the right fundamentally.

Never seen anyone been so scared of being in the wrong on the internet. You get angry over it as well. For such a logical man you let your emotions get the best of you a little too much. We can leave it at that.

Oh dear, you do struggle.

If you understood that the 7 man tablebases are not a strong solutions of 7 man chess under FIDE competition rules as I explained in numerous posts (the last being #4288 which you didn't any rate attempt to contradict) then it's a rather small step to understand that a 32 man tablebase constructed along any of the same lines would also not be a strong solution of chess under FIDE competition rules.

As a basic and general point, this conversation about solving chess has been derailed by people who refuse to talk about concrete ideas and lines, which they say we can never be sure of. If they feel like that, why are they even talking here? Solving chess is a practical issue and people who claim that even the simplest of human judgements is prone to error are not helping.

Do they imagine that machines are going to take over the World? Or is it to try to establish their superiority, because they imagine they exist in a rarefied world, where all ideas are abstract and perfect; and their world of perfection is never impinged upon by any human judgements that could be in error?

Well, nothing they are saying is helping them to make a useful contribution, because they can't even draw the correct, logical conclusion from their nihilism, that chess can never be fully solved.

I believe the same thing, that chess cannot be fully solved; but my objections are from the practical standpoints of available time and available software and hardware, and the difficulties of resorting to a mathematical solution.

Against the latest Stockfish, I reckon you would be sunk as black after 1. e4 e5 Bh6. This is no insult: I'd estimate you need to be about IM standard at least for the piece to compensate adequately for the difference in standard. I would not be confident at daily time controls (and I am not bad at daily chess).

Consequently, your confidence in your personal ability to win this position is based crucially on the assumption that the opponent will play badly (i.e. not as well as it could).

     Of course the position after 1.d4  Nf6  2.Qh5 can't be proved to be a loss for white as it is impossible to reach under the rules of chess.

     Then after repeating this nonsense a couple more times this poster claims that no one else here can keep up with his logic. Small wonder.

I'm aware it would be very difficult and a lot of effort but I can play Daily to a higher standard than my rating suggests. I just don't, as a rule, put in the necessary effort. I'm aware that you are an excellent Daily player. A however, though, is that you are missing the point that it's a win by best play and the fair test is to have equal contestants. I don't really know where you get this "white would have to play badly" thing from. White is lost.

I had a look at some possible lines. I'd be very tempted to take with the pawn rather than the N to open lines for my pieces and to keep the knight near the centre to support the e5 pawn. I tried it against the weak analysis engine they have here and just for fun I played Bd6 without moving the d pawn from d7 and black was increasing the advantage. It isn't a difficult position to play as black.

A typo, old fruit. I credited you with a bit of commonsense and good manners. Obviously wrongly. Your loss.

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

More to the point, your comment seems to be a great advert for a bitter and twisted person. There's a club for them here. As I said, your loss because I bet I'm not the only one in whose eyes your standing has just plummeted. I think I noticed it and forgot to alter it. I've been very busy. Is that a big problem for you?

     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'm sorry but I'm afraid that although previously we have had a couple of interesting conversations, your lack of good manners means that so far as I'm concerned, you just joined a club, of which I wouldn't care to be a member. It's a very small club.

     "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.