Just a random person we both know. I talk to people sometimes but maybe you don't. It was out of the blue because it was ages since we talked or messaged.
The point is that both of you make the assumption that you aren't trolls.
As do you.
Just a random person we both know. I talk to people sometimes but maybe you don't. It was out of the blue because it was ages since we talked or messaged.
The point is that both of you make the assumption that you aren't trolls.
As do you.
You were upsetting people for ages before our paths crossed.
I'm just the messenger.
Anyway, this is just yet another sidetracking project basically because you aren't very good at debating and you're trying to protect your own.
Just a random person we both know. I talk to people sometimes but maybe you don't. It was out of the blue because it was ages since we talked or messaged.
The point is that both of you make the assumption that you aren't trolls.
As do you.
You were upsetting people for aged before our paths crossed.
I'm just the messenger.
Anyway, this is just yet another sidetracking project basically because you aren't very good at debating and you're trying to protect your own.
As were you. Our paths first crossed when you were beating somebody else over the head with your claimed IQ. Not surprising, really.
You are a messenger for a kingdom of ne'er-do-wells 
.
Just a random person we both know. I talk to people sometimes but maybe you don't. It was out of the blue because it was ages since we talked or messaged.
The point is that both of you make the assumption that you aren't trolls.
As do you.
You were upsetting people for aged before our paths crossed.
I'm just the messenger.
Anyway, this is just yet another sidetracking project basically because you aren't very good at debating and you're trying to protect your own.
As were you. Our paths first crossed when you were beating somebody else over the head with your claimed IQ. Not surprising, really.
You are a messenger for a kingdom of ne'er-do-wells .
That's something you just made up. That's what you do: invent things but by now, everyone knows you do.
Even if it were true, why should you get involved?
And the answer to my question is ... there is not a single person who is willing to back up @Optimissed's inexplicable claim that a model example of deductive reasoning is inductive.
I don't believe he is capable of seeing why that is.
Do you notice anyone backing up your claims in the few minutes you've kindly given them?? Who knows anything about the subject??
You're only making yourself more foolish than ever. Even an attempted appeal to the majority when you claim sole expertise is in any case completely bogus. You're a fraud. Did you know?
You've become desperate, haven't you.
Anyone with any intellect at all would not try to appeal to a non-existent majority. Why do you make yourself look like a fake? You're supposed to be working at a top University. Have you no pride and no shame?
If you were what you pretend to be, at least you could make an effort to actually answer the points I make but all you can do is troll and sidetrack. You've lost it completely. No-one is going to have any respect for you at all.
One of the best acts to come out of the experimental period in the early 80s. I had my record shop at the time, before I sold it at the beginning of the miners' strike in 84. Another good one was Falco, Der Kommisar. Hundreds of great acts becore the decline happened and Michael Jackson, Meatloaf and Heavy Metal happened. (yuk).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj4rprx_pf6AhW4QkEAHWc2B2AQyCl6BAgWEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8-bgiiTxhzM&usg=AOvVaw1HthIomWrEuUA91WZ5Chs-
FALCO (auf Deutsch)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiUnNzbgJj6AhUObsAKHfo8DFcQtwJ6BAgGEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dd4O1A-mmBWw&usg=AOvVaw1fR3h9tnbi47jv0xCKj9W6
Back on topic.
The game-theoretic value is the outcome when all participants play optimally.
Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined.
There is massive evidence that the game-theoretic value of the initial position of Chess is a draw.
Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
Strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined
for all legal positions. For Chess this would mean a 32-men table base
and there are 10^44 legal positions, too much for present technology.
So the question is: will Chess be weakly solved?
So this means for Chess that for the initial position a strategy (i.e. one strategy, not all strategies) has been determined to achieve the draw for black against all opposition by white. i.e. white tries to win, black tries to draw, white fails, black succeeds, then Chess is weakly solved.
All participants play optimally, this means that white must oppose to the draw.
1 Nh3 opposes less than 1 Nf3. 1 a4 opposes less than 1 e4 or 1 d4.
1 c3 opposes less than 1 c4.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is sure not to be optimal play.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1 does not oppose: 3...Nb8 draws by repetition.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nd4, 3 Nxe5, 3 Ng5, 3 Nh4 are sure not to be optimal play.
Good assistants, i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters must contribute such knowledge and more.
The use of such knowledge is beneficial and allowed in weakly solving a game.
That leaves 10^17 relevant positions.
The latest cloud engines calculate a billion positions per second.
A year contains 31557600 seconds.
Thus 3 cloud engines (or 3000 desktops) can weakly solve chess in 5 years.
That is what GM Sveshnikov prophecised:
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess."
He was right.
The obstacle is the money: 3 million $ to hire 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters full time
and rent 3 cloud engines (or 3000 dekstops) non stop 24/7 during 5 years.
That is what GM Sveshnikov prophesied:
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess."
He was right.
The obstacle is the money: 3 million $ to hire 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters full time
and rent 3 cloud engines (or 3000 dekstops) non stop 24/7 during 5 years.<<<<
Twaddle. 
Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.>>>
That's meaningless. Define what is meant by strategy and you should see that it's inapplicable and the only strategy is to play good moves. Also, "any opposition" means that obvious blunders are included. They rightly fall into the other incorrect category of "strongly solved".
Strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined
for all legal positions. For Chess this would mean a 32-men table base
and there are 10^44 legal positions, too much for present technology.>>>
That's even more meaningless (if it's possible to be more meaningless than meaningless) because there is no need to find the best continuation against mistakes which definitely lose and against random play. Probably 99.99999999999999999 etc forever of games fall into this category. "Solving chess" therefore isn't concerned with them. It is only concerned with a tiny greay area where a probable mistake has a tiny possibility of being sound play.
Do you really need a "strategy" against play where your opponent drops his rooks and queen, three pawns and one bishop in the first 20 moves? So, again, all that is necessary is to play soundly. Doesn't even have to be the best moves because there's no law of chess that says you have to win in the fewest moves possible.
These are points that Elroch cannot understand either and so the two of you are united, in a complete failure to understand the twaddle that you both spout. These so-called "strategies and definitions" are complete junk. They are at the level that a slightly retarded, 13 year old schoolboy might achieve. Neither of you have a clue.
You have basically, both of you, fallen into the error of believing that some junk you have found on Wiki was written by experts in the field. When I first saw those definitions a year or so ago, I immediately assumed that they'd been written by a philosophy professor who was having a laugh. You know, having a joke to see what his students (or junior lecturers) would make of it. I still think that's entirely possible and that these definitions are someone's joke: all the more funny because no-one has edited them out of Wiki if there are no Wiki editors who know they're wrong. When I first saw them, I laughed and here you both are still believing them. And you expect to be taken seriously. 
One who eschews and dismisses all sources of knowledge cannot really know much. That just follows, yes?
Eschews is a very good word for dogs to know.
One who eschews and dismisses all sources of knowledge cannot really know much. That just follows, yes?
You must imagine that you and Elroch are sources of knowledge!
Just a random person we both know. I talk to people sometimes but maybe you don't. It was out of the blue because it was ages since we talked or messaged.
The point is that both of you make the assumption that you aren't trolls.