Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

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.

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.

     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 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?