Chess will never be solved, here's why

Good post!

And I want to post a short version of what I posted earlier ...
If its going to take 500 years to solve from 8 pieces on the board to 9 pieces and then 25,000 years to get to 10 pieces (which tygxc wants to call 'tracing')
and so on with another 500 multiplier each time then its easy to see that one would never ever get to 32 pieces before the sun engulfs the earth in about 7 billion years or whatever. (earth's orbit decays very slightly but its progressing)

Elroch constantly outclasses 'O'.
But also - almost everybody does.
Its become more obvious recently.
Even some of the worst people on the site do better than the O-person.

You haven't defined narcissism properly.
Look it up so you know the meaning.
Narcissists hate themselves?
Hardly.
Plus they vary.
So you've made a syllogism bc. You'll make many.
Anyway - Elroch's post about the N balls was very good.
Like his post about 'perfect information' doesn't mean something can be solved.

Naturally insecure yes - and O is obviously very insecure.
But that doesn't mean 'hating oneself'.
You might have his tendency to credentialize though ...
Are you going to be narcissistic yourself because you're in 'psychology classes'?
If you're that bad now - you'll be worse when you get your degree.
(EE has a five year psychology degree ... Lol)
But good news - you'll be in better shape than O.
That's virtually guaranteed.

With all due respect, this is the sort of error good students learn quite early not to make.

Let's think of it like my example with drawing balls from an urn. You say that since you have drawn 105 white balls, every further ball that you draw will be white. Most perceptive people (maybe you now) will understand that is not correct, but let's try to make it simpler.

If you (misguidedly) believe all future games would definitely be a draw if you have had 105 draws then, logically, there must have been some precise number of games after which you became certain, having previously not been entirely sure. Let this number of games be N. Then it had to be the case that after N-1 consecutive draws, you could not be certain all future results would be draws, but after one more draw you became certain that all future results would be draws. This is patently ridiculous. Intuitively, the difference between any positive probability and zero is enormous, and can't be bridged with inductive evidence.

The only thing that makes sense here is that if you start with any uncertainty in the results, that uncertainty will always persist. It gets smaller and smaller, but not ever leaping to zero.

I recommend studying Bayesian reasoning to anyone who wants to understand how to deal with uncertainty in the real world. It is indeed the "logic of science".

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