Chess will never be solved, here's why

@7504

"You're not even planning a solution according to any sensible definition."
++ Weakly solving just as sone for Checkers:
calculating from the opening to a 7-men endgame table base draw.

You've already claimed Checkers wasn't solved because not all openings were included in the solution. Whether or not that was the case you're planning to not solve chess for exactly the same reason (among others).

"Problem is you don't seem to have any."
++ you < me < grandmaster < SF ⋘ perfect. 
I do not qualify as one of the 3 good assistants, which would require (ICCF)(grand)masters.

You'ld be better just running three copies of SF on a desktop. Unless you're willing to wait for them to run SF for 5 days before adjudicating it would do just as well. Even if you're willing to wait 5 days every time, you're not guaranteed any improvement.

Definitely cheaper.

[Reinserted for context: The peer-reviewed paper 'Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZero' has 'knowledge' in its title. It leads to things we know, not things we guess, believe, or think.]

"What's it got to do with your proposal to solve chess? Aren't you planning to use some version of Stockfish?" ++ Yes, Stockfish running on 3 cloud engines with 3 grandmasters using knowledge to launch and occasionally terminate calculations.

None of which are AlphaZero as far as I can see. So again, what's it got to do with your proposal to solve chess? 

"With the current level of AI programs can'r really be said to know anything at all."
++ The peer-reviewed paper has knowledge in its title, not guess, think, or belief.

Oh sorry. I didn't notice that. Of course that means AZ is sentient and knows what you say it knows. Has to be true if it's peer reviewed.

"I gave you my ranking earlier in the thread."
++ You are not qualified. Otherwise publish your findings in a peer-reviewed paper.

"There are only three possible outcomes. No such thing as opposing more."
++ There is a thing as opposing more.
If say 1 e4 leaves only a series of only moves to secure the draw, and if 1 a4 allows say 6 different moves to secure the draw, then 1 e4 opposes more to the draw than 1 a4.

Absolutely not in terms of perfect play.

"how you can do against SF15 from 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6."
++ How I, or you, or Carlsen do against SF15 has nothing to do with solving Chess.

Neither have your proposals. In particular your big red telephone is not a valid logical method.

"The fact that it's not complete means it's not a valid solution."
++ Incomplete is not the same as invalid. After the good moves are proven unable to win for white, then it is trivial to repeat the same procedure for the bad moves.

How can you say it's trivial when you can't do it?

And nobody knows what most of the good and bad moves are until someone (competent) manages to produce a solution.

"The rest of us would need a solution."
++ Some patzers may not understand that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses.

No it doesn't. Not even with Stockfish as White. Try it.

If you can't do it, you're one of the patzers. You don't understand things you can't do. (Doesn't apply just to game theory.)

"I tried it with two engines in Arena" ++ Two bad engines... That position cannot be lost.

Your big red telephone better than both, is it? Doesn't auger well for your project because one of them was SF15 which I think you're planning to use.

In any case you'ld consistently lose against either, so I think we can confidently dismiss your assertion that the position is a clear draw as just so much more BS. 

I would remind you that it's almost always you who brings up the subject of IQ. It's your obsession and not mine. It's also a bit of a far stretch to equate discrepancies regarding a few findings in a subject with derision for the entire subject; and it really shows how you think. It shows that you make things up to deliberately attempt to falsely show others in a bad light.

Thinking about what you were saying yesterday, I would say that the amount of hostility you display very often in arguments you cause with very many people indicates strongly that to have that amount of anger on tap, so to speak, you must have a sort of reservoir of anger in you.

That indicates that you have underlying anger against yourself, so what causes it? Why is it that it's like a button is pressed, especially with regard to some moral issues or issues that you see as moral? And you become not only unreasonable, but hostile and you deliberately distort just about anything, in order to try to show others in a bad light. I mentioned before what others tend to think of you and I would say it's due to that. It's the deceit, the twisting and misrepresentation of other people's statements. I'm wondering what causes the degree of anger you have against yourself. Maybe I could try to guess. Quite a lot of people have already tried to guess what it is, of course. There's one theme that consistently comes out and I have to say that my mind is also drawn to that explanation.

I come back to this thread 995 new posts later and suddenly it's about the early settlers in America, the British empire, and the difference between nationalism, patriotism, and national or ethnic chauvinism? How did this happen?

Isn't this about whether chess will be solved and debating whether won, drawn, or lost in chess means in a mathematically absolute sense or in an "overwhelming majority of conventionally good lines lead that way" sense?

You are laboring under some idea that this thread is a back and forth discussion.  It's not.  It's one crackpot who has already been refuted by everybody else, and one pot-stirrer who doesn't know diddly but likes to pretend he's the only one with the real answers.

Occasionally a new poster comes in and also refutes the crackpot, by making the same arguments already put forth dozens of times.  It is helpful, in terms of volume of dissent.  The only reason cogent posters are still here is to make sure that the crackpot's narrative does not get any traction.  There are better threads on this topic.

Another whopper!

^^ Another troll. Probably with dementia.mm

Sorry, I forgot that you're perfect. My mistake.

I'll tell you what though. For perfect people, you don't half defend yourselves at the slightest hint of criticism. I suppose that's why you're such a great nation.

tygxc's only real mistake is to insist on the Sveshnikov five year plan. However, others are equally mistaken: Elroch because he insists it isn't known that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses. In a way, that's crazier than tygxc's assertion. MAR for continually bringing up the question of rules of chess, which is irrelevant when it can't be solved anyway. Then we have the crackpot who picks fights with everyone and thinks he knows it all. That's you. And the crackpot who continues to treat you with respect even though you've proved time and time again that there's no way you deserve it. That's me.

     I certainly do not subscribe to the all-too-common idiocy of defending one's own nation as a paragon of virtues, a trait hardly limited to the United States. Personally, I vehemently disagree with the "America is a shining golden beacon inspiring the rest of the world" claptrap we hear too often.

     There are areas where every society is better, and worse, than many others. Knee-jerk jumping to the defense of the overall "obvious" superiority of one's own nation and discounting any criticism thereof is a confession of deliberate ignorance.

treat you with respect even though you've proved time and time again that there's no way you deserve it.

Your main superpower is to contort anything that occurs into part of a delusional narrative that keeps your ego safe.  Joseph Campbell and the monomyth has nothing on you.

Talking to yourself is a sign of dementia, @Optimissed.

As for you, I'm far from the only person to think you're mentally ill. Everything you say seems to have most relevance if it's seen in relation to yourself. Take more of your tablets. If Chess.com had a proper blocking facility I and hundreds of others would be using it.