As for implicitly claiming that you never make mistakes, that's preposterous. ...
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.
I was admiring my own writing in #5299 and you have to try to bring me down, you 
Ratt.
I'm good and you know it. 
I don't really rate your own attempts either but to be fair, I think you were just doing your own thing in these related threads. All that toing-and-froing with ty. Do you think anybody read any of it?
I know none of it was meant to be taken seriously but with Big E it's different. He believes his own fiction.
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.
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.
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 honestly can't help it if you can't remember what you wrote, mpaetz. You did write you are certain that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white. "Personally certain" means that you think something is true and it's your strong, personal opinion.
Do you have a problem with drinking? Much of the time you are reasonable and you seem to go crazy every so often and make angry posts, always because you misunderstand something.
If you have a grudge, take it out on those whose dishonesty perhaps creates an environment you dislike or, better still, stick to threads that don't annoy you.
I honestly help it if you can't remember what you wrote, mpaetz. You did write you are certain that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white. "Personally certain" means that you think something is true and it's your strong, personal opinion.
Do you have a problem with drinking? Much of the time you are reasonable and you seem to go crazy every so often and make angry posts, always because you misunderstand something.
If you have a grudge, take it out on those whose dishonesty perhaps creates an environment you dislike or, better still, stick to threads that don't annoy you.
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.
You could just be mad?
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.
You could just be mad?
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.
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.
Well, they might be a bit thick but it's nothing to so with that. It's your seemingly uncontrollable bouts of anger, that erupt for no reason external to yourself. Your eruption last night made me suspect it was fuelled by drink, since it seemed to be based on your lack of understanding of a simple phrase. Since you're normally ok at deciphering what something like "personally certain" means, I assumed you'd been drinking, although that wouldn't necessarily explain the anger itself. If it isn't that then something else. I don't think most people object to being accurately quoted, if its something they already made clear in public and so your reaction to it seemed completely off-beam. Do you see tygxc reacting violently because I also quoted him as being certain that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white? Or RemovedUsername? She made herself as clear as you did.
You could just be mad?
I can see your wry smile from over here...
No no, deep concern!
OK there was a wry smile then. 
<<<I did NOT say that that I am CERTAIN that 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6 is lost for white.>>>
Funnily enough, although you did, I can no longer find the post to that effect. How strange.
...
It is certain that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for black with best play from both sides.
...
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?
Although the chess.com engine prefers Nxa6, I'm pretty sure that black wins quicker after 2. ...ba and therefore that is the stronger capture for black.
I was also going to explain why game theory cannot apply to the solving of chess... [snip]
Go on, give us a treat. Perhaps afterwards you can explain why number theory does not apply to the number 213276247234766621.
@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".
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.
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.
They matter in exactly the way I, with the relevant expertise, think. They are the way to arrive at absolute truth about abstract entities. For example, the game of chess with your preferred rule set (in so far as it applies only to the moves, not to the extraneous stuff off the board) is precisely definable as an abstract entity, and all logical propositions about this abstract entity are either true or false and the only way to justify certainty about such a proposition is to prove (or disprove) it. [Note that the finiteness of the game of chess means that there are no undecideable propositions about chess, as there are about all infinite mathematical objects]
He doesn't have the mind of a scientist but of a pure theorist, dealing only in abstractions. And he makes mistakes.
I worked 14 years as an applied scientist. My mind (or some part of it) is therefore technically that of a scientist.
It is easy for you to glibly (not to mention maximally vaguely) claim I make mistakes, but I am confident you are unable to point a significant example that would be accepted by the more rational participants of this group.
No, you are the glib one. Nothing you've been arguing for the past 100s of posts has a bearing on chess being solved. All you want to do is get out of this with a very dubious reputation intact because it has been shown that the "absolute" uncertainty you insist exists in the clearest of examples exists only in your own mind and for the express purpose of supporting your own agenda.
You are so completely dogmatic that it has been impossible to make progress with you as a participant here. I would have moved on to the unhappy truth that these examples we've been discussing, regarding clearly obvious assessments which you wrongly claim are not clear, do not help the solving of chess because of the very fact that they are the clear examples. There will be trillions of unclear examples that really do need to be examined in great detail: obviously making tygxc's project impossible but also preventing any meaningful solution of chess until and unless there is a breakthrough in methodology.
I was also going to explain why game theory cannot apply to the solving of chess but it seems pointless with you here to basically disseminate your recidivism, preventing any and all progress, simply because you are not up to it and don't understand as much of this as you imagine you do. You should just stick to talking with ty. About your level. He is very helpful to beginners and intermediates here and has many good ideas. Solving chess isn't one of them and neither is it for you.
As for implicitly claiming that you never make mistakes, that's preposterous. Especially if you define "rational" as "those agreeing with Elroch", as of course you do. And that discounts the four people at least that I've mentioned, who disagree with you regarding the central point in the past 500 or so points, which is based on your inability to understand anything you didn't think of first. I really don't care what you've done in your life because you've shown that all you want to do is to dominate all discussions but you are not particularly able and not highly intelligent. If you were, it would be demonstrated by now. All that has happened is that I have belatedly reached the same conclusions about you that 100s of people have reached before me. You're vain, you are the one who is narcissistic and you are never going to change until the day you die.
I wish you happiness in your life for the future.