Chess will never be solved, here's why

Exactly who is attacking whom? I thought you're doing all the attacking for both of us.
Aren't you here to discuss solving chess? What do YOU think of the use of Game Theory in that project, then? MAR and I agree that it's completely inapplicable and Elroch seems all for it. Give us a brief synopsis.

Do you agree that there's a difference in type between playing and solving chess, for instance?

You don't have to quote everything.

Well then?

OK. I'm really more interested in discussing solving chess and the more highbrow atuff. You have to understand that there are some trolls in this thread, particularly, who wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere. Don't be like them.

I agree it won't change anything because it will confirm what we already understand. So why are we talking on this thread? I think it's about the technicalities of whether it's possible. That in itself is something we can learn from. True, the conversation moves slowly and goes in circles but it does actually move. In particular, although many people pretty much have agreed with me that chess will probably never be solved and that things like Game Theory aren't relevant, they have tended to argue pretty much in isolation and then disappear. But I'm pleased that MAR, whom I always thought was hiding his light, has decided to start arguing seriously. Otherwise, although I was completely convinced it was right to do so, it was difficult to argue with Elroch and his troll accompaniment.

The consensus here is that we don't have the technology nor the methodology. Myself, Elroch, btickler and others all believe that. And others also agree with you but the consensus among the more vocal ones is that it's impossible..

Yes, I've quoted you because I have a comment about that. What makes you and me different from some of the others on this thread and elsewhere is that neither of us seems to be obsessive. I think that what you said earlier on was a bit childish but it isn't and wasn't important. Neither of us are really going to fall out with each other over it. Yes, we have each other blocked but we could always unblock. I blocked you because I was annoyed with you at the time I did so. I never hold grudges because most people are capable of moving on.

I already unblocked you. But I had wanted to make the point about siding with known trolls. You know what I think about some people and I'm aware you don't like to discuss it.

For posterity. 170, Rat. And 71.

Must be strong stuff, that. I wonder what btickler thinks IQ is. At a guess, he did an online test and came out at 160. Realises it isn't anywhere near true and thinks everyone else (but him!) is so dumb that they do online tests. And that's why he's got 160 on the brain.

??? Never mind, a lifetime's progress isn't going to come in an hour. All the best.

Thanks.

I don't have it on the brain.  Your oft self-reported reported IQ is in the 160s.

169.

But 169 as a minimum. I was recovering from a severe illness when I took the series of tests. I had bad days and better days.

You do have it on your mind or you wouldn't have raised the subject. Also I was doing an experiment, as I pointed out. On a good day I would have gone a lot higher than 169. I estimated I could probably have scored 185. You simply don't know what you're dealing with. It's totally outside your experience. You imagine someone like me will write things you agree with all the time but if I did do that, it would mean that I wasn't what I am.

I only used that strategy because I was winning all the arguments and that didn't go down well, so they were being sidestepped and eventually I was being told I'm stupid. I don't have to react to that but telling you my IQ seems to cause you so much general confusion, hysteria and distress that it seemed a good idea. It's actually rather funny.

Anyway, you don't have a leg to stand on because you yourself made a big issue of it.

IQ stands for "Intelligence Quotient".   A quotient is a quantity derived by dividing one number, the dividend, by another number, the divisor. Anyone remember this stuff from grade school? So next question....does anyone remember what the dividend and the divisor are to determine the quotient....in this case, "Intelligence Quotient"? In other words, what do we divide  by what to get IQ?

So-called mental age divided by chronological age. It stops being accurate some time in the teens. The more intelligent you are, the later, chronologically, that your ability stops increasing. Mental age is based on average scores by people of all ages up until the time that ability is thought to stop increasing.

As I said, in the 160s.  Why continue to bridle at an accurate statement?

To think that because you claimed to score 169 while sick that 185 should be more accurate is ludicrous.  You also bandied about the number 190 at one point long ago when you made the claim that your IQ fluctuates between 160 and 190 on good and bad days.  So, in your world, one day you are arguably the smartest man in this century, and the next you are just 1 of about 8,000 people. 

But this is all belied by the fact that someone with such a high IQ would not be so easy to wind up with a tactic as obvious and simple as "in the 160s".

P.S.  Ask your wife to explain to you that hysteria is a made up malady.

    Quotient: from Latin quotiens, meaning "how often". As how many times does A go into B. Beside math, it can mean a certain quantity or share--as "He certainly has his full quotient of bravado."

     The original conception was to divide a person's "mental age" (their test score) by their physical age, then multiply by 100. Now the test score is compared to the mass of previous scores and placed according to how many standard deviations (15) it differs from the average 100).