Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

Thats up for dio to answer

Quite the heated arguement ensuing in this thread

Zowarrrdooo

I do not post on alts. There's no need to when you are confident about what you post.

Optimissed likes to go full-on fabrication when things don't turn out the way he hoped. His seemingly deep-rooted obsession with lingerie is apparently a separate issue.

There are two methods which chess can be solved in:

Method 1.

There are 64 squares, 32 pieces, billions of players over all 1500 years. Not a single human solved chess. Even artificial intelligence can't solve it. Well, if chess.com creates a 50,000 Fide rated computer then we can consider chess as solved. We'll only need a few NASA supercomputers, add all the power and turn it into 1 ULTRA computer and name the computer "infinity". After that, they'll only need 50,000 people to code for 500 years straight and chess will officially be solved.

Method 2:

Change the rules so that one side can win in 10 forced moves.

And my life has commanded my disappearance eternally...

That's right.
When I reminded him he was blocked in Dio's Covid forum for attacking other posters - O went into full denial and projected his own dishonesty.
I have never seen Dio lie or fabricate even once.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/covid-19-discussion
Here's the entry on the Covid forum: there's a list of blocked people and why they were blocked.
"@Optimissed for attacking other posters (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/covid-19-discussion?page=150#comment-62695593)"
@Optimissed would also be blockable for spreading Covid disinformation.

Which would tend to mean coming from O that Elroch is Right on everything Elroch has claimed and suggested and patiently and accurately communicated.

i had no idea opt was spreading covid disinformation.

Of course Dio doesn't lie. He doesn't need to.
Nor does Elroch. Who you've underestimated.
Here's your accurate Phrase from just now
"- delusional but I think that is a more accurate term for how O acts"
Yes. Of course!!
But the key thing there is that you saw that On Your Own!
--------------------------------------------
And if you really have had some psychology training - 
then you'll know about distinguishing paranoid schizophrenia from the much rarer and intricate 'delusional disorder paranoid type' which is classical paranoia as in the DSM series but they renamed it ...
and you would know about the further distinction with 'paranoid personality disorder' where 'delusions if present are transient and not well organized'.
O's delusions come and go. They are indeed not well organized. Not intricate.
Except that he keeps returning to the same ones.
There's a cycle.
He imagines himself to have an authority which happens to not ever exist.
Grandiosity in other words. Probably his central recurring delusion.

BC you made progress.
I'm surprised. I didn't expect it.

If you are suggesting that the O personna is fabricated - that's a definite possibility. Often one can't be certain.
I haven't 'assumed'.
Absolutely everything he's represented about himself could be phony -
because his credibility is so low.
In other words a 'manufactured personna'.
But that's only a possibility.
And I think its unlikely because of the tremendous effort and his foolish investment over a ten year period. Without much political ideology.
His obsessions are centered on himself. Doesn't fit with alt account 'operations'.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have encountered several fake 'alt' personalities here over the years.
They often make little or no effort to conceal its the same person and same personality but with different account names. Many llama accounts. Itude accounts. Many Virdi accounts and so on.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Others (a few) make a tremendous effort to create multiple very different 'personnas'. Different nationalities - gender - age group - education level - profession - everything.
If you know about the UP account - then you know what I'm talking about.
I think of 'alt account operations' as a form of trolling.
I call it 'type 1 trolling' because alt accounts have been the biggest problem for the website management over the years for multiple reasons.
But there's also type 7 and type 8 trolling.
-----------------------------------------------
BC has it occurred to you that partisan organizations would send professional trolling people into very busy websites like chess.com?
If you think about it for a minute - you might realize its very unlikely they wouldn't. Unlikely that its not happening at all. Paid trolling people.
That's what I call 'type 7'. Often goes with Type 1 - a much larger group.
Before dismissing - consider all the other wrongful things that go on on the internet. You would know.
---------------------------------------------------
But O doesn't really fit with type 7. Nor with type 1.
He's much more types 2 and 3. Trolling obsessions with credentials and things like chess titles and ratings is type 2. Common on this site.
And the even more common type 3. The most common type.
There's some type 8 in him. 'Operations' trolling.
PM's and maneuvers - attempts to manipulate the staff and opening posters and the like. It often boomerangs on him. Which he entirely deserves.
But some people are very good at that.