Chess will never be solved, here's why

I have very little interest in you, no interest in such vague concepts as exactly how thick you are, and none of my posts address this. Technical discussions are not about getting points against others, they are about improving understanding.

I discuss facts, and as part of this I have pointed out factual inaccuracies in your posts on many occasions (such as the incorrect use of standard terminology, important to technical discussions).

Presumably (based on previous examples) on reading the last sentence you descended into a blazing rage and your overiding instinct to protect your ego is driving you to find a way to lash out, probably including some vacuous (i.e. lacking in any specific content) insults. Maybe this is as natural as the barking of a dog, but it is not how others of us act. I am never motivated in this way.

Perhaps you can learn something from that, but I am not over-optimistic.

That is an excellent post.
And its not about me.
Will Elroch's great post be wasted on tygxc?
I don't know. 
It will be 'wasted' on O - but that's okay.
But it won't be wasted on others.
Regarding tygxc though - and his 'resistance' and Elroch's wonderful patience (while still being efficient) 
Although Elroch is right - tygxc's 'persistence and refusal to agree' is still doing a kind of job here - providing a function.

BC I didn't call you a retard.
And it seems you want a double standard as to who can criticize.
Something like O does. He's intensely hypocritical.
And I've caught him calling Dio and Elroch 'troll' in forums where or when they're absent. But he's almost kind of 'afraid' of Dio these days!
Worried. Lol!

BC - Suggestion: Keep studying in those psychology classes.
If you try hard enough - you will eventually learn.
Instead of 'sigh' and mental kneejerking....
That's why you're there right? To learn?
Or are you in those classes just so you can 'strut' later?
Won't help you if that's the case.
And remember - I didn't force you to read my posts nor to be here.
You choose to read and then complain? More and more like 'O'.

@Opt, a minor correction, I don't actually "try" to create any impression and how I "seem" is simply a consequence of what I post.

I do try to make my posts absolutely correct, precise, informative. I recognise there's always room for improvement in how I communicate - in a forum it is important for others to understand what you write rather than merely being correct.

Again, I am not "trying" at all.

Difficult advice: discuss the facts and give up the willy-waving.

""plausible doesnt equal proof"
++ Try to come up with a plausible error distribution that explains 105 draws in 105 games."

i dont have to. its on you to prove that none such exists. this is basic proof LMFAO. your math education is clearly not past highschool, and you certainly didnt remember what was in highschool math.

i love how tygxc continues to prattle off the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

tygxc what makes you think you know better than mathematicians? answer this.

its fully dunning kruger.

yes, exactly. tygxc doesnt understand what a mathematical proof entails. he thinks his heuristics (statistical estimates) are "proof", when anyone with even a little bit of mathematical knowledge has quickly pointed out that thats not the case.

He also is bizarrely claiming that the burden of proof is on others to provide a counterexample.

this isn't even math proof standards anymore. it's just fallacious to begin with. its known as an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

earth's orbit decays very slightly but its progressing until the process reverses

I did actually convince him (along with other people ) that blitz chess might be good because of it's competitive nature even tho otb turnements are all rapid and that playing only rapid isn't the only way to get good at chess (rapid is a way though )

So he does change his opinion occasionally

Even if he has the druning crougar effect

The important thing to be aware of is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Anyone 100% familiar with this should probably skip the rest of my post!

In deductive reasoning you start with absolute facts and deduce other facts. An example would be solving a mate in 2 problem. This consists of finding the first move and showing that every legal reply to the move leaves you with a way to mate in one. In the end you can be rightly certain of the answer.

Inductive reasoning is different. It is really about generalisation. The information you have is examples, but what you are really interested in is general facts.

Inductive reasoning is source of all knowledge about the real world (things like the above chess problem are about abstractions that we represent in the real world. Chess is an abstraction represented with wooden pieces or computer screens).

Inductive reasoning works by starting with a state of belief about the real world, getting empirical data and then revising that state of belief. In most cases, the beliefs start very uncertain and the data reduces that uncertainty but never removes it, The only real exception is where the belief is that something exists and an observation confirms this (which assumes the observation is entirely precise and reliable - not generally the case in the real world).

The scientific method relies 100% on inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can be used within the abstract models that are used in science, but this is a distinct matter.

Interestingly, AIs are very much inductive reasoners. They use large numbers of examples to refine a very general model with up to billions of parameters.

The main paradigm of inductive reasoning is Bayesian probability theory, provably the only way to deal quantitatively with uncertainty (with some mild assumptions)!

I suspect I have not done a great job of communicating this, but I would say it is one of the things that everyone would do well to be familiar with and recognise when they are discussing technical topics. Note that it is highly relevant to areas like the justice system as well (although lawyers are unreasonably opposed to Bayesian reasoning being used by jurors!)

Lol, your powers of observation need work...first, you missed one of my posts that I referred to later when I said "this unblocking will be shortlived"...second, Idilis is already back under another name created quite some time ago, and you have yet to notice.

"Elroch has claimed many times, it seems, that science has nothing to do with analysing chess"

i think you misinterpret what he's saying. hes moreso saying that the scientific method cannot be a suitable mathematical proof.

@MEGCHE3SE is right and to the point, as usual.

I'm not the one with his knickers in a twist.

No, Sherlock, I preemptively sidestepped your attempt before you even read my post, thus deciding not to use "my" at all. You're very predictable, and not too observant.

...your memory is also a bit suspect. There's no panic, it's more like I am playing ping pong with a 3 yr old on a footstool. Fun for you, even if you don't get what's going on, but a bit tedious for me.

Note that if I never mentioned anything, later you'd have sworn on a stack of bibles that I said "my knickers" in spite of your having quoted me...you have done this "I only read what I was hoping to read" thing a number of times in the past.