Chess will never be solved, here's why

""i provided actual proofs"
++ None at all. You proved what? Where?"

try looking instead of living in your fantasy. no use repeating.

"present a line that does not lose for white. That is how chess analysis works."

i did, its in one of the 10^18. by definition, a proof addresses this.

your logic is like Andrew wiles claiming that fermats last theorem is proven by the claim "oh you need to suggest an N that works, otherwise my proof holds"

math professors consider tygxc's logic to be worse than a middle schoolers.

tygxc's response: downvote, and continue to believe that he knows proofs better than literal mathematicians.

so, what's your highest math education buddy? we both know it isnt past calculus because you would have brought it up already.

ive literally won awards for my abilities in math proofs. how are you claiming that you know more about math proofs?

@9408

"its in one of the 10^18" I ask for one (1).

"Andrew wiles claiming that fermats last theorem is proven"
++ Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem and received the Abel Prize for it.

"he knows proofs better than literal mathematicians" ++ Better than any here.

"what's your highest math education" ++ More than any here.

"we both know it isnt past calculus" ++ ROFL, you have no idea.

"ive literally won awards for my abilities in math proofs" ++ Does not show here.

@9409

"That isn't the same as being a forced loss"
++ In the end it is a loss, so it is a loss until an improvement for white can avoid the loss.

"whether 1. g4 loses" ++ Yes, 1 g4? loses.

"white is playing 2. Bg2, except where the obviously rather bad h3 is played." ++ I have prsented two sequences with 2 Bg2 and one with 2 h3. IM Basman insisted only 2 h3 is correct.

"why is there no game featuring 2. e3?" ++ I will look into that as well.

@ 9411

"transgender numbers" ++ Transfinite numbers. Georg Cantor was a great mathematician,
but yes, lesser intellects laughed at him,
and no, his theory has no practical application, it is 'pure' math.
John Horton Conway even extended this to Surreal numbers

@9409

With checkmate in 12.

"Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem and received the Abel Prize for it."

read my statement again. you clearly have no idea what a hypothetical is. this is the difference. everyone else can tell EXACTLY what im talking about while you cant follow the logic.

"its in one of the 10^18" I ask for one (1)."

yeah and I gave it.

you havent proved other wise so you cant say im wrong. this is basic math, a proof doesnt require a lack of counterexample, you must prove there isnt one. this was covered in middle school.

im noticing you continue to refuse to provide your math education. provide it.

"In reality, haven't you been asking people whether tygxc has any justification and they're been answering that he doesn't? I've been in some difficult discussions with mathematicians on this site and I wouldn't get into arguments if I didn't think someone was wrong. Regarding what is acceptable as a proof, it seems obvious that a logician or mathematician accepts different criteria for proof than a scientist accepts, since mathematicians and logicians deal with an ideal world populated by ideals and scientists deal with the real world and all the inductive judgements which have to be made."

it is not standards of proof differing across fields that is the issue here, its that hes combining such differencees with obvious logical fallacies that you yourself can see.

His comment is the most downvoted in the chess community 💀💀💀

Who cares about iq lol you seem smart but iq doesn't make you right

why arent you addressing the other 10^18 possibilities.

@9416

"yeah and I gave it." ++ No. You did not.

"a proof doesnt require a lack of counterexample"
++ As long as there is no counterexample it stands.
'No experiment can prove me right, one experiment can prove me wrong' - Einstein

"your math education. provide it." ++ More than any here.
I am guessing you took 9th grade geometry and that was your highest.

@9421

"why arent you addressing the other 10^18 possibilities."
++ For obvious reasons. I address one possibility.

what are the reasons, by definition, you need to address all of them. im waiting.

thats not how proofs work LMFAOOOOOO

THIS GUY REALLY THINKS THAT A LACK OF COUNTEREXAMPLE COUNTS AS A PROOF

HEY LOOK I JUST PROVED RIEMANNS HYPOTHESIS, THERE'S NO COUNTER EXAMPLE SO IVE PROVEN IT.

@9424

"you need to address all of them"
++ I do not need to address anything.
You need to propose a possible improvement for white or stay silent.

I already did, its in the 10^18 solutions. I suggest each of them one at a time. why arent you addressing them?

@9425

"My highest is Multi-variable Caculus, what's yours?" ++ Calculus... much more than that.

"Never seen you use slang before." ++ I can be blunt too.

its so funny because you can see IMMEDIATELY what my point is while tygxc misses it completely. its like he lives in a 2d world while we live in the 3rd dimension, literal basic stuff to us is beyond his comprehension.

@9429

"I suggest each of them one at a time." ++ I reject your stupid suggestion.

"why arent you addressing them?" ++ For obvious reasons.