Chess will never be solved, here's why

BC if you've put in time on Reddit - then maybe you know a great deal about internet personality behaviours and social media issues.
I've never been on Reddit.
I sometimes see google entries on Reddit but I've never been a member there.
Nor twitter nor quora nor stack overflow.

Still BC you're willing to make the effort to discern different types.
You're willing to admit the possibilities of you making errors.
As you know - not everyone is willing to So Admit.

Talking Back to people who troll intensely should be distinguished from 'trolling' and 'Ad hom'.
Many people don't talk back because they regard that as 'Feeding'.
'Never Feed the trolling person'.
But there's an improvement.
'Operate on your own terms - not dogmatic terms. Give the trollling person what he doesn't want.'
The person best at interfering with trolling persons and disinfo people on the website - is Dio.
He's very very good at it. A 'natural'.
Elroch very good at interfering with disinfo too. He's efficient at dealing with trolling persons.

Guys, who's Elroch? I know who Dio is but not Elroch

Yes you do.

The problem with statements like that is you need to be able to back them up. Find one thing I have said that was wrong - you say you have already done so, so it should be really easy.

While trying, bear in mind the relevance to the claim by our resident narcissist that I am always wrong.

Limitations of Computing Power

While modern computers have made significant strides in chess analysis and gameplay through powerful engines like Stockfish and AlphaZero, there are inherent limitations to computational power when it comes to solving chess. Despite the advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, the resources required to comprehensively solve chess—accounting for all possible variations and strategies—are currently beyond reach. The exponential growth in complexity as the game progresses further complicates the task of achieving a complete solution.

The Role of Human Error

Another crucial aspect that prevents the complete solution of chess is the presence of human error. In competitive play, even the strongest grandmasters can make mistakes due to factors like time pressure, psychological stress, fatigue, or oversight. These errors introduce uncertainty into the game and create opportunities for unexpected outcomes that may deviate from optimal play as determined by theoretical analysis or computer calculations.

Emergence of New Strategies

Chess is a dynamic game that continues to evolve over time as players develop new strategies, openings, tactics, and approaches to gameplay. The introduction of novel ideas and innovations keeps the game fresh and engaging while posing challenges for traditional methods of analysis or solving. As players experiment with unconventional moves or unconventional setups, the landscape of chess strategy expands further, adding layers of complexity that resist easy categorization or resolution.

Conclusion: Chess as an Ever-Evolving Challenge

In conclusion, the multifaceted nature of chess—with its infinite possibilities, human creativity, strategic depth, computing limitations, human error factors, and evolving strategies—makes it highly improbable that chess will ever be definitively solved. While advancements in technology may continue to push the boundaries of what is achievable in terms of analysis and gameplay optimization, the essence of chess lies in its enduring capacity to challenge players intellectually and creatively without succumbing to complete resolution.

It took me a full half our to write this, so please read it.

I'm practising for my IT class btw haha

Hahahahhah. Hi Martin!

Elroch speaks for himself ...
but I'll add something here. 
Elroch is the opening poster of these two nine year popular forums on this website. Since 2015 in other words.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/the-science-of-evolution-no-politics-or-religion With over 50,000 posts.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/global-warming---its-real-dummies With over 25,000 posts.
//////////////////////////////////////////////
The O-person was foolish enough to post his chess game in the evolution forum and got a warning from Elroch. Very recently.
Then there was somebody named HarbingerofDoom breaking the rules by insisting on preaching religion in that same evolution forum. Again - this year.
Who thus got rightly and efficiently blocked by Elroch. Ejected.
A person supposedly a doctor then foolishly protested that block.
The name of that 'doctor' is @HaplessFool. I kid you not.
HF then quit the forum.
/////////////////////////////////////
The O-person then went foolishly extra-Nuts. Not a new thing.
And got himself blocked too. In both forums. Not the first time.
'O' has been muted by chess.com staff too. On multiple occasions.
'O' now foolishly blames Elroch for what O foolishly self-inflicted on himself.
He does that constantly. Masochistically. In various ways. Year in year out.
///////////////////////////////////////
Dio also blocked 'O'. Years ago. In the Covid forum.
Now O is 'sucking up' to Dio. For now.

I don't believe optimal play is determined by theoretical analysis or computer calculations, except in certain types of position with a very limited number of men on the board - notably a majority of positions with up to 7 men under FIDE basic rules or a majority of such positions with no previous positions considered repeated per art. 9.2.2 under FIDE competition rules (guaranteed if the ply count <4 in that case, but not otherwise).

Engine analysis can be ignored; I have posted numerous examples of SF without tablebase aid failing miserably with only 5 men on the board and it sometimes appears to be stuffed finding mates in 7 according to this blog. Human theoretical analysis is woefully inadequate except in a subset of the positions mentioned in the last paragraph and even then a large percentage of theory with only 5 men or less was overturned by the tablebases.

Edit: Looking at the link again, it appears the latest versions of SF may not be stuffed until mates reach a depth of 10, but given that we know of forced mates a little short of 600 moves and this is likely to double with completion of the 8 man DTM tablebases it doesn't affect the argument much.

Have you considered running for US president, Optimissed? I believe they're having an election later this year and your style of argument seems to appeal to a lot of people over there.

@QuantumTopologistISBACK

Don't see being from the UK should be a disadvantage if he could raise enough money to keep a few judges happy. Russian agents are popular. Touch on the young side but plenty of dementia to compensate.

And yes, we probably are.

"The uneducated" in the words of a much more famous malignant narcissist 'complimenting' his base.

@Optimissed, what would you say is your second greatest intellectual achievement in life?

(After a purported outlier IQ test taken half a lifetime ago when your brain was young, a claim which I treat with a pinch of salt based on knowledge of how narcissists elaborate).

tf you mean Elroch is a narcissist, he doesnt display any of the behaviors. if anything I'M closer to being a narcissist.

either way, ill take this conversation over tygxc spreading misinformation any day.

I'm a bit puzzled why you suggest @playerafar is narcissistic - as far as I can see, he completely fails to exhibit the checklist of characteristics in the way certain people (no names mentioned) do. See https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/how-to/how-to-spot-a-narcissist-5-things-to-look-for/ for such a list taken from a respected medical source.

Translation: I'm not like BC. Who is probably very young.
He doesn't understand that he is doing what he is talking about.
But that's okay. No big deal.
'O' hopes to 'isolate' Elroch. 

My post was short.
And everyone is different.
Didn't you know?
I've looked at my other alerts first.
Checked out the last post on this forum.
You want a long continuous exchange of 'you and me' posts?
Generally - I don't get drawn into that.
But you'll find people here to do that with.

@Optimissed, to be frank, you don't act like a nice person and exhibit a lack of empathy towards other participants. It would be fair to say you seem only to view them as potential threats to, or support for your ego. In the former case, you insult and attack them, believing this will defuse the threat. The latter case is quite rare. The sum total is very unconstructive, hence why you have been prevented from disrupting some threads.