Chess will never be solved, here's why

That's what solving chess is all about, old bean. Is this discussion about solving chess? Can you do it in your head with 100% accuracy??

It has all the bearing on this discussion it requires, old thing.

You always give the point up when you try to inject dismissive humor.  It's like a tell in Poker.

Oh yes, so you're contesting what is told on account of the language used to tell it? I don't think that quite works, sadly for your assumption.

     You can't find such a quote because it never existed. I did say I believe that  1.e4  e5  2.Ba6  is losing for white, but certainty is by definition "established beyond dispute", and I repeatedly admitted that it is possible I might be wrong. Unarguable proof is still lacking.

I believe you used the word "certain". I would not have mentioned it if you hadn't, since I always attempt to be completely honest. If you wish to deny it, that's up to you and it takes nor adds nothing to the discussion, so it's better left to rest.

Any FIDE rules that are not found in the pamphlet with a chess set that you might buy for a child are of no interest here.

It's about the legal moves and how a result is reached as a result of those moves. Those rules make the game finite and it can be assumed games are played to a finish.  This is in common with the entire academic literature relating to this class of games ("combinatorial games" as @btickler reminded us they were called)

     What you believe will not always prove to be true in the long run. You were the first to mention my supposed use of the term. I object to your putting words into my mouth and then chiding me for "saying" contradictory and/or incorrect statements, then publicly insinuating that I must be drunk, insane, or deviously deleting posts when I point out you are mistaken. However wonderful you think your memory may be, you are obviously wrong on this point.

     And if things were "better left to rest", what was the point of reiterating your unfounded claim? You seem to need to always have the last word in order to convince yourself of your mythical greater intelligence and understanding.  

     Let's see if you can actually practice what you preach and let this drop.

"Old bean" and "old thing" are completely extraneous to the discussion and only serve to deflect from the fact that you had no answer for my previous post.  It's a common tactic...more common among the general public than claiming mental superiority, actually .  Your use of "contesting what is told" is a contortion you chose to avoid saying "contesting my argument", because then this answer which I am giving now becomes blatantly obvious...it's not part of your argument.

Carry on.

Virtually all your posts are extraneous to the dicussion, what there is of it. It isn't a very useful discussion, mainly consisting as it does of heads in the sand. You make more personal attacks than the rest of the thread put together and that includes Elroch. This is a personal attack by you.

Yes, you fail to see just about anything that seems convenient for you. I'm going to show you up for what you are ... a troll, who started a series of personal attacks over something insignificant, as usual. Eltoch has made a series of mutually contradictoty posts but even so, he was VERY clear that he believes game theory is used to solve chess. When I made him aware that it wasn't logically possible, he then made a series of personal attacks and unpleasant remarks. That's because he's rather like you are. If he can't think of a reply, he attacks. Both of you are well-know for it and this is completely of your making. The two of you. Neither of you likes to lose arguments and yet both of you talk doen to people and personally attack them when they have opinions you dislike.

First of all, the bait, above. Basically a deliberate misrepresentation of what was written. Consdescending and basically ignorant.

MY REJOINDER

That's what solving chess is all about, old bean. Is this discussion about solving chess? Can you do it in your head with 100% accuracy?? It has all the bearing on this discussion it requires, old thing.

And the beginning of your troll attack:

<<You always give the point up when you try to inject dismissive humor.  It's like a tell in Poker.>>

It should be obvious that I didn't concede any ground. You tried to grab it.

Optimissed      

 

 

Oh yes, so you're contesting what is told on account of the language used to tell it? I don't think that quite works, sadly for your assumption.

And now you had what you, as a troll, wanted. Something to attack. The following series of posts was basically you trolling. That's what you are and that's what you do. You went away for a while and thought out what posts you were going to make.

 

You could always approach btickler and see what he has to say on the matter. I tried that approach with him probably eight years ago. He made a series of answers to the effect that he dislikes people and has no intention of being friends with anyone. He denies that now but that's what he does and that was his answer. So have a word with him and tell him not to be such a troll, maybe. Coming from someone else it may help. The present feud he has with me is the result of me doing what you just tried to do now, when he was attacking someone else. Well, I basically told him to stop.

That narrative is a complete fiction, for the record.  We have never had significant PMs of any kind.  You used to, on occasion, try to rope me into teaming up with you on other posters, but once it became clear to you that I don't respond to such games, you stopped trying to ingratiate yourself with me and moved on to those with less integrity.

Optimissed lives in a world determined by his ego's best efforts to shield him from the truth of how he actually feels not about everybody else, but about himself.  That's really the whole story right there.  If you read his posts with this lens, you will never misunderstand his intentions, and everything he says will fall neatly into place.

Was that for the dishonest, refabricated, invented record?

Anyway, who said PMs? And not my games. Yours. I am sure that all is not well with you and that you habitually project your own insecurities on others. Ultimately you always end up accusing THEM of projection. There isn't any doubt about it at all. Bonkers. Completely.

You did, the last half dozen times you tried to foist this fiction.  Apparently your memory is slipping...

Your post then became (additions in bold):

"Who said PMs? And not my games. Yours. I am sure that all is not well with you and that you habitually project your own insecurities on others. Ultimately you always end up accusing THEM of projection. There isn't any doubt about it at all. Bonkers. Completely."

...and then that post became:

"Was that for the dishonest, refabricated, invented record?

Anyway, who said PMs? And not my games. Yours. I am sure that all is not well with you and that you habitually project your own insecurities on others. Ultimately you always end up accusing THEM of projection. There isn't any doubt about it at all. Bonkers. Completely."

Note that you can keep adding more aspersions and deflections to it...it's not going to help.  It's kind of funny because I am prone to adding new points and clarifying things, but when you attempt to do the same you add gibberish and obfuscation.  We default to different goals in our communications.

You edit your own posts continually so what point, if any, are you trying to make? And why don't you basically calm down and act more normally. Try to get on with others. This is a funny thread in not a particularly good way because it seems to attract people who are strange. I'm probably fairly strange too but I don't live in a delusory world. I know very well that you continually invent things.

Anyway, this is getting us nowhere. Just stop your misrepresentation of other people's posts. Goodnight.

You utterly do, not that you would be able to perceive that .  The strangeness in this thread comes from two sources, both of whom have delusions that drive them.  One driven by the need to be above everyone around them to feel secure and safe, and the other driven to turn the offhand comments of his deceased hero into reality.

No, but that is a fluctuating number, for multiple reasons .  The analogy is not quite there.