Chess will never be solved, here's why

You can take that point of view regarding whether we exist in the first place or whether we're merely figments of our own imaginations.

Too much deference is being given to the views of those like Elroch, who are essentially nihilists, who believe that only deduction suffices, even though there's nothing to deduce from, which isn't suspect in one way or another. Out of the window with them, basically.

LeelaZero's billion parameters for evaluating everything about a position (trivially including the material and anything you might include in "all other factors"  (plus a million times more) provides it with enormously more testable understanding about this but does not provide it with certainty.  A passable human player like yourself being certain about this is an example of your poorer judgement versus an AI that is over 1000 points stronger.

Just look at this nonsense. I've already explained to him that non-certainty is built into a machine like Leela. It can't do otherwise. Doesn't take a blind bit of notice.

Half your posts are telling people how intelligent you are and half are telling people you can't understand things. Doesn't seem to be any consistency. 

A lot of people here don't understand how to argue for their opinions. Very often they don't know that they should be arguing for their opinions because they seem to think that what they think they've learned is fact. Consequently they just announce it as fact but when asked to support it, they don't know how to do so. Or they can't be bothered. It becomes a bit annoying to be constantly told I'm wrong because they say so. I sometimes just tell people they're a bit stupid. I think it's fair enough when they make personal comments, as they do. It isn't as easy as you might imagine being cleverer than nearly everyone else in an environment where a lot of people's egos are at stake and there are always those who turn it around and start projecting.

There's something about the people commenting on threads like this. Most people on the site are fine. They don't have anything against others and don't try to pretend they're something they're not. But just look at the constant argument you're having with tygxc. Round and round in circles. He doesn't seem to be able to learn anything but neither do you, very fast, and you've definitely always been a troll, although a fairly good natured one. Elroch and btickler both learn slowly but it seems to take them centuries.

Oh and where did I just tell someone I didn't understand something? I was telling Elroch that he doesn't understand something. You should try to be more original.

Not much of what you post is worth a reply.

What you mean is that you don't understand much because you're lazy and other things which we needn't go into. If you had a bit of intelligence and could actually use it, your reaction would be different. Your reaction being what it is makes a statement about you, not about anything else.

Indeed you were. That was where you told everyone you didn't understand what he'd posted. 

You swap repetitive arguments constantly with ty because that's your level.

Because it was a bad argument.

Show me you're not a troll.

Show me that you have some intelligence and can use it.

If you understood what a troll was, you might stop trolling .

@5170

"This method of solving chess relies on using the judgement of GMs or engines"
++ No, it does not rely on the judgement of engines, it relies on the ability of the engines to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition.
No, it does not rely on the judgement of GMs. The GMs reduce the computation to relevant width and depth. The proof of the Four Color Theorem did not involve coloring all maps,
only a humanly determined relevant subset.

"any engines used would have been surpassed by new developments"
++ The newer engines can complete the same task faster.
A newer Stockfish released during the 5 years of the task can be switched to.
A released 8-men table base can be used, but does not change much.

"casting doubt on the entire process." ++ No. Computers are now more powerful than in 1976. That casts no doubt on the proof of the Four Color Theorem. Newer computers cast no doubt on the solutions of Losing Chess, Checkers, Connect Four, or Nine Men's Morris either.

"only a brute-force computation of all possibilities can be entirely reliable"
++ It is pointless to compute all possibilities of say 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? until checkmate.
We know the outcome for sure: white loses. What would be the point of this computation?

It is pointless to compute all possibilities of the final position of this game https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 until a 3-fold repetition.
We know the outcome for sure: a draw. What would be the point of this computation?

Look, if you knew what not being a stupid child was like, you might give that a try. I told you before. If you carry this on, you'll be reported.

Anyone who talks so much about their own intelligence level must be very insecure.

I think you must be very insecure to go round looking for people so you can tell them they're insecure. Insecurity must be on your mind much more than it's on mine, for instance. But since you're interested, let me tell you something.

This place is full of insecure people who are trying to gain something, as you're doing, by trying to talk other people down. The argument arises because there is a lot of people who consider themselves experts and talk complete rubbish with great authority. If they're challenged, they just refer to this or that "expert". And if someone gives a perfectly sound argument as to why what they said is wrong, they never get to answer that argument because they are incapable of it. All they do is make personal attacks. It's prevalent online.

So I tell them that if you make personal attacks then you've basically conceded the argument if you haven't even tried to answer and maybe they don't know that. So then they come on like trolls and maybe say they answered it 3301 posts ago and if I tell them that they didn't put forward a good argument at that time and that I made that clear at that time, they can become abusive or insist that they did and they certaintly aren't going to repeat themselves for people who didn't understand them the first tme round. It happens quite a bit with some I could mention. Others don't resort to that and are willing to explain it again but if the argument was no good in the first place, that doesn't help either. Usually they can't give convincing arguments in the same way I'm trying to convince you.

Pretty much anyone who does that is trolling, because what they're doing is abusive and it's quite common with some people here. I'm not talking about most people online or on chess.com. Just people with their own ego-problems. They usually bring up the subject of intelligence but I talk straighter than they do and I'm not going to be like such people and become sly and devious. Basically because I don't need to. No-one with real ability needs to.

There is a lot of people who accuse others of having their problems because, unconsciously, that's something they're focussed on. Are you one?

Let's just check this. Has Yoyostrng suggested anyone else was insecure?