Chess will never be solved, here's why

I did it just because I expected such a reaction from a paranoiac. But I will do, because, amazingly, you had the sense to remove it from your quotation, so you aren't being a hypocrite for once. That doesn't mean I don't know you're mentally ill, though. It means you were right on this occasion. I know you deny having such problems but quite frankly, anyone who can write such stuff as you do has at the very least a marked personality disorder. I think it runs deeper and that would explain your extreme sense of over-conventionality as well as your noticeable aggression against anyone who offends your personal sense of social morality. You may have heard of Judge Jeffries.

I think tygxc uses the term wrongly. He feels he's backed up by the experts but I believe I was able to demonstrate that they also were confused and why that occurred.

Sorry, but no. This entire post reveals your confusion. It is necessary to be very arrogant to think that you, as someone with no basis for expertise, can dismiss the body of knowledge with which you are not even very familiar.

Game theory, like mathematics, computer science and information theory, is a rigorous subject, to the extent that its results are mechanisable (and often mechanised). The games dealt with are abstract representations of those humans play, as precise as the representation of a symmetry group or a data structure.

The root of the trouble is involving games theorists in solving chess. It isn't appropriate because games theorists actually do use paper algorithms to score strategies, in order to try to shape a procedure to the best replication of real life cause and effect. However, the scoring methodology is sheer guesswork which is honed by successive approximations. Their procedures consist of models of reality.

No. How did you come to believe such a thing?

Guesswork is inapplicable in solving chess and therefore games theory is inapplicable. The original fault would be with whatever dodo first involved games theorists, unless, of course, they themselves were the dodos. The only applicable strategy is finding good moves. Nothing else.

Guesswork has no place in the entire body of knowledge of game theory.

@btickler, just to be clear, I'm aware that you've twisted your narrative to make it about "you helping me", whereas of course, you never have any intention of "helping others" unless it's to your advantage. In this case, again you are trying to portray a picture of you that is on the look-out to help others, whereas I (and others) know that the reverse is true. You like to harm people, if you can, if you feel offended by them. And you feel offended if they deviate from your prescribed course regarding any of what you believe are "moral issues", as here.

I don't post accounts or opinions that are not true, at least to the best of my ability to perceive the truth. Sometimes I play around with people who irritate me in other ways and you have certainly irritated me recently. Just bear in mind that you can be manipulated very easily and also bear in mind that most people here in these forums are normal, sane and reasonably intelligent people. Do you see me getting into arguments with them? No, it's just one or two, who might very well be nutcases. You can think of me what you wish but that doesn't mean that others are going to share your opinions automatically. Most people form opinions of others in relation to the way they feel those people have treated them and others, as I do with you.

Yours is not to turn everything around, pretend to be an angel and blame others.

I don't post accounts or opinions that are not true, at least to the best of my ability to perceive the truth.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about, so back it up.

Everyone knows with you (btickles) it's cyclical. On heat or something.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the mathematical study of optimizing agents. For the mathematical study of sequential games, see Combinatorial game theory. For the study of playing games for entertainment, see Game studies. For the YouTube series, see MatPat. For other uses, see Game theory (disambiguation).

Chess is a sequential game, so at that point you should continue with "Combinatorial game theory". That's the point at which you go wrong.

Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science.>>>>>

You will see that first on the list of applications of game theory is social science. Social science is a a loose or soft science where it is impossible to make exact mathematical models. All such models are on the basis of estimations and basically guesses. Therefore, as I pointed out, Models are not exact but approximations. Approximations are not suitable for solving chess. Therefore neither is game theory.

I have answered as accurately as I can in a short passage. If someone is intelligent they will understand the point I'm making. If they reject it outright without good argument, they cannot be taken seriously. I say this because I know very well the history of people here, and their incompetence.

"you will see that first on the list of applications of game theory is social science."

thats not the only application.

cmon man

Always anyone but btickler. Wherever he looks, he sees failure, except in those who see in him competence.