Chess will never be solved, here's why

The starting position is an obvious draw.

Oops, I just solved chess.

QED

@tygxc could hardly disagree, but he will feel a bit peeved that you have managed it without a team of GMs and $5 million funding.

I have to refuse the GMs, but as a gesture of good will, I will allow tygxc to pay me $5 million.

I suspect @Optimissed failed to realise he was replying to one of his own posts. This provides an explanation for his negative views.

Chess will be solved when knowledge is accepted. Computer search engines only sees in algorithms, human ( including Susan Polgar) see by both. Computer sees mistake I see sacrifice, checkmate!

This is why you always win against Stockfish and have a rating of 3800.

If there's disrespect, it's founded directly upon 1000s of posts, where Elroch does not even consider opposing arguments but sidesteps them. It isn't just my opinion, because I've explained and, I hope, conclusively demonstrated that Elroch's opinion is founded a the constant stream of mathematical pseudo-evidence, since uncertainty is built into the programming of the engines he uses as evidence.

One reason for that is because zero is a non-rational number, from the point of view of calculations. 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.

As far as opinions go, tygxc believes that 1. d4 definitely doesn't lose for white, by force. I've taken the liberty of transferring the discussion from 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6, which does lose for white, to 1. d4, which doesn't lose, because it doesn't alter the nature of the disagreement in any way but it adds emphasis and is clearer. RemovedUserName implies very clearly that she believes we can be certain about these things. Mpaez says he is personally certain ... that he sees no uncertainty and I also agree that there are chess positions, the evaluations regarding which we can be certain about, without any necessity to try to mimic computers.

This leaves Elroch, who believes there is uncertainty as to whether 1. d4 doesn't lose for white. I've explained clearly that such uncertainty exists in his mind and is not a product of mathematics in any absolute or true sense. The uncertainty exists because he thinks he's a computer, which goes well with the old joke about slightly mad philosophy professors, who sometimes think they're a teapot.

Any port in a storm, eh?

I was enlarging upon my previous post and explaining why you have zero credibility in this subject, since you constantly sidestep or fail to understand arguments that show you to be entirely mistaken. I think almost anyone would agree with me that you can only avoid criticism of your arguments for so long and you just lost the argument. A bit like the bad joke in bad taste, about Italian tanks that have one gear only.

There's consolation.

tygxc and you have a great deal in common, regarding how you both deal with arguments against your incorrect pronouncements. So you'll make a great team together.

One reason, perhaps, why @Elroch prefers to sidestep your arguments.

What are the four promising lines you select for White here?

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

It's possible that tygxc should have preferred "up to four promising lines".

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

I know. I'm just saying that tygxc isn't wrong about everything. Far from it. The guy has courage, though, to stick with the five year plan.

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.

I really can't think it exists. Anyway, we know it's fantasy.

@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.

This crap you are talking is nothing more than evasive and sly and I'm completely sure that it's you who is out of your depth. If programmes didn't use real quantities in their calculations, then it would stop much of the calculation that the programmes demand. In any case, your belief that a programme can accurately quantify probability to one or two trillionths of a percent or whatever is complete nonsense, given that the figures are merely placeholders and have no meaning.

What are the odds that you're going to find a sly way round what I'm saying? I think 100% and you would imagine 99.9999999%. Because you always do it. You never engage because your conceit is geared to prevent any possibility of having to accept that you're on the losing end of an argument. You project like mad. During this conversation you have called me narcissistic, arrogant and conceited. They apply to you. I'm now going to stop because if I continued, I'd end up telling you what I actually think of you and it isn't complimentary.

But you said you were personally certain. I also am personally certain. In my view, not to be certain that 1. d4 doesn't lose for white is pretension only. It's fake. A pretense at displaying wisdom.

Proof doesn't matter in the way that Elroch thinks. He doesn't have the mind of a scientist but of a pure theorist, dealing only in abstractions. And he makes mistakes.