Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, since you don't understand that there's no disinformation. All info is info. It's yours to use as best you may.

Now, I disagree with the likes of Elroch, player and Dio regarding what the proper response to Covid was. There should have been a very brief lockdown to prepare hospitals and infrastructure. Obviously the jabs don't stop you catching it and spreading it so if they lower the symptoms, you have more chance of not noticing and spreading the disease. The lockdowns, as they were, killed over a million people who didn't get proper care for other ailments. Almost everyone knows of someone who died from Covid complications but they'll know more who missed out on vital hospital appointments because of it. It's vital that the World Health Organisation is discredited because they put themselves above the law and in future they will mandate damaging responses. I haven't even mentioned the apparent health problems the jabs are causing, because it's too early for there to be proof.

Given all this, it's natural that this bunch of oiks will use every chance they have to dicredit what they don't want to hear. I don't think BigChesspayer665 is being all that helpful because, by attempting to steer a middle path, he's unable to reach proper understanding, because he's doing it to try to appease the fake intellectuals.

There's no doubt that this thread is full of fake intellectuals. That is, people who don't have the expertise or ability to understand what's really going on, yet pretend they know it all. If you were an intelligent person, you would definitely be agreeing with me over my criticism of their approach to this solving chess discussion. There's much too much laying down the law by loudly claiming that the proper way to analyse it is mathematically, which a proper mathematician would laugh at or, at least, disagree with.

So go with the majority if you wish. The fact that making such a choice will hold you back and tend to prevent you making wise judgements in the future isn't my concern. However, I would think it should be your concern if you want to make a success of your life. If you want to emulate life's failures, go ahead. Learn to think like they do. Don't bother asking others what THEY think of those people. You'll probably end up like them and they'll have succeeded in keeping yet another person down. That's what they like to do because it amuses them and makes them feel that they've accomplished someone.

The bottom line is that none of them like people who can use their brains, because they feel threatened by it.

Please provide support for your "1 million people died due to the lockdowns" claim...real support, I mean, not some crackpot blogger with a psychology or philosophy degree...

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

And Elroch, you are our resident narcissist. Your vanity is not backed up by any ability worth speaking of and the only people on the entire site who agree with you are your trained monkeys. You are completely out of your depth and that shows clearly because you haven't given any proper arguments. That's because if you tried, I would dismantle them. So you just got your parrots to make squawking noises. You're nothing more than a troll.

The reason I'm telling you this is the personal attacks you were making on ty, which were completely out of order, encourage others to do the same. There is no doubt at all that you're a troll and that is widespread knowledge. I even think it's now too late for you to change.

Pardon the hyperbole, but you couldn't dismantle a Lego house with a sledgehammer, much less dismantle logical arguments.

Elroch
BigChessplayer665 wrote:

I thought I might have seen elroch call tygxc intellectually dishonest before ... That could have been playforfar tho

Best not to guess in public. I have not called him that. I try to say as little about people as possible and stick to detached facts (yes I have made one exception recently).

I have repeatedly pointed out the inaccuracies in what @tygxc has posted. I had thought that he took no notice and had become rather frustrated and said as much but, to his credit, he did accept a recent example (a discussion of the number of theoretical errors that could lead to 104 draws).

If I can summarise the corrections (which are factual in nature, and not at all personal), @tygxc has often indicating misunderstanding the generally understood (in the game theoretic literature) notion of solving a game. Solving a game is essentially a mathematically sound proof (including computer checking of cases), a deduction of truth with no unwarranted assumptions. As an example of the latter, assuming a position where one side is a queen up is won is an unwarranted assumption.
He has indicated partial misunderstanding of the nature of the peer-reviewed publication on the solution of checkers, perhaps the most complex game yet to be solved. Said solution is rigorous and deductive and involves no assumptions about the values of positions without proof. The proof consists essentially of a combination of a large tablebase of endgames and strategies that force at least a draw according to that tablebase (with candidate moves being suggested by an extremely strong engine, but the engine having no role in the final proof).

The sorts of inaccuracies in @tygxc's posts including suggesting that when analysing a strategy for one player you can ignore some opponent moves because they look bad without proving they are. Exactly like in a chess problem this is not good enough.

For example he has suggested recently that he has proven that 1. g4 loses for white, without dealing with huge numbers of possible white moves against his proposed strategy. This is a misunderstanding of what a proof is.

While this might seem impossible, I would like it if everyone in this discussion got to a solid understanding of the nature of the solution of a game and the reason that it is so hard to solve chess (a game which is much larger than checkers, which took more than 1000 years of CPU time - many thousands of years of core time).

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

That seems a trifle unrealistic. Are we trying to show off again?

I already discovered that your excellent rhetorical ability, which is admirable, isn't matched by your logical ability and you are generally the one who gives up attempting to argue logically when the going gets tough.

You are not noted for syllogistic excellence.

If by "gives up attempting to argue logically" you mean that I sometimes stop arguing with you after already winning the point, while you continue to flail about for a bit, then yes, I agree.

You're not a fit judge to talk about syllogism, whether the application is excellent or mediocre, so no point in addressing that.

MARattigan
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote: 
...

That seems a trifle unrealistic. Are we trying to show off again?

...

I doubt if he is, but it's a given for the other one.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

No I didn't mean that. You have never ever been near the winning point of any argument you have caused between you and me, just as you are nowhere near winning this one.

I don't generally cause arguments, but I have been known to end them. As for who usually wins, I leave that for reasonable posters to decide on their own.

Elroch

Can anyone find a post of @Optimissed that contains some substantial information about facts relating to the topic of discussion (solving chess) rather than willy-waving?

MARattigan
Elroch wrote:
...

I have repeatedly pointed out the inaccuracies in what @tygxc has posted. I had thought that he took no notice and had become rather frustrated and said as much but, to his credit, he did accept a recent example (a discussion of the number of theoretical errors that could lead to 104 draws) ....

Don't count your chickens.

MARattigan
Elroch wrote:

Can anyone find a post of @Optimissed that contains some substantial information about facts relating to the topic of discussion (solving chess) rather than willy-waving?

But answer came there none.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

There's also incontravertible evidence that you have never won an argument with me, which is simply that playerafar believes you have always won every argument you've ever had with me. That's very strong evidence you've never won an argument. Anyone who knows playerafar well will agree.

I now await your response with laugh-buds atingling.

You don't really have any leeway/space to be making fun of other posters, though you've tried your hand at it I'd say half a dozen times in the past day or so?

MARattigan

I think it's rather because there isn't one. Can you find one?

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

That is very possibly because they now know that Elroch is a troll. You are clearly one. Dio is trolling again.

It's always the same. Whenever Elroch takes his insulting behaviour much too far, like he did against tygxc on this thread, and there's a kickback, doesn't matter who from because he's disliked by just about everyone, out comes his little team of monkeys to support him, The entire site knows that's what happens and has happened for years.

This is about you...you are the actual convergence point here, not Tygxc, not Elroch, etc. Keep on telling us your innocent narrative about how all these disparate posters are just attacking you out of the blue for no reason and cannot see your brilliance and grand beneficence...

The fact that the truth has never sunk in is mind-boggling. It's been a decade now. If "the entire site" knows your narrative is true, why do you only interact in petty PMs with a few ne'er-do-wells and gossips? Where is your groundswell of righteous justice-seekers carrying you on their shoulders?

Elroch
MARattigan wrote:

I think it's rather because there isn't one. Can you find one?

To be clear, it is perfectly ok for @Optimissed to try to answer my question.

MARattigan

From where are you getting your statistics?

MARattigan

?

MARattigan

Thank God for that at least.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

Course it isn't. You are part of a small number of bullies who work together and are very strongly disliked by most people who know you. So much so that most people avoid all contact or interaction with you. Elroch is the same. A bully, a troll, dishonest, disrespectful to people, blocks people for disagreeing because he doesn't like the stress of being disagreed with.

You on your Covid thread were legendary in the same way. Deliberately trolling your own thread to pick fights with people who disagreed with you, so you had an obviously fake excuse to block them and deny them free speech.

There's no question about whether it's about you or about me. The only people who back you are known trolls who get off on the very temporary rush of occasionally being able to get away with bullying people.

Don't make me teach you what free speech means yet again...

It's funny how your narrative manages to paint everyone else as the bully when you have been the bull in the china shop for years.

Reality: you have been blocked from many of the longest running and respected threads on the forums. It's not a coincidence. Your behavior is out of line. You want to participate, because these more mature and thoughtful threads appeal to your ego and self-image...but you can't manage to without getting frustrated and blowing a gasket whenever you are not immediately crowned king of the discussion. There's got to be a hundred examples of you unilaterally saying you are the smartest guy in such and such discussion by now...

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

Incidentally, you are even implying that when you attack people, PMing them to get their reactions is disreputable. But someone has to show that they care and are on their side, since you go to very great lengths, and this counts for both of you, to isolate people and sweet talk others to get them on your side. That is identical behaviour to that used by psychopaths.

I haven't done so for a while. After Elroch dishonestly blocked harbinger and me, hapless, who is a practising physician, contacted me and explained that he intended never to post on E's threads until we were reinstated. But I feel the same way and will never again add credibility to Elroch's threads by posting on them. Since this has happened, many people have contacted me and told me what they feel about Elroch, so I have no need to contact others to be sure that he is held in disrepute. How many of you are there? Three? Two maybe? Four at the most? And you make out that you're the only sane people on the whole site and everyone who dislikes you is crazy or being unfair to you? You don't need to be told this by a groundswell of opinion. If you weren't scared because you know I'm right, you'd ignore me.

End of conversation so far as I'm concerned.

This "sweet talking cabal" delusion is going to keep being your downfall. Rest assured, posters have no problem independently coming to the conclusion that you are persona non grata. When you finally admit this to yourself, you might have a chance to do something to change it.

playerafar

Dio 'deadly efficient' as usual.
From @Optimissed just now:
"But I feel the same way and will never again add credibility to Elroch's threads by posting on them. "
Pretty hard to post on Elroch's threads if you're blocked from them!!
Hahahaahah.
gringringrin
And O just confirmed my conjectures about his 'PM operations'.
-------------------
And regarding the new guy 'BigChess'... BC
he'll want O being blocked and O's trolling and delusions to be 'all about player'.
I had nothing to do with it!
Lol!
I wasn't even posting in either forum when O got himself blocked in them!
And I didn't even know Dio's Covid forum existed when O got blocked there for trolling.
I haven't seen the trolling posts that O got himself blocked for in Elroch's forums.
And I don't know exactly what posts caused the chess.com staff to mute him on multiple occasions. Haven't seen them.
-------------------------------------
But O's patterns are obvious.
And I did see him foolishly post his chess game in Elroch's evolution forum and get a warning!
the world according to BC: 'Hey player - O doing that and getting himself muted and blocked is about You !!')
happy
O (that's @Optimssed. 'Opti') also just confirmed what I said about Harbinger and HaplessFool ...
I can now post 'for' BC in advance ... 'player - Opti getting himself muted and blocked and those other people is about You being Aggressive and Political! '
Should I be honored?
Or honoured?

playerafar
MARattigan wrote:
Elroch wrote:
...

I have repeatedly pointed out the inaccuracies in what @tygxc has posted. I had thought that he took no notice and had become rather frustrated and said as much but, to his credit, he did accept a recent example (a discussion of the number of theoretical errors that could lead to 104 draws) ....

Don't count your chickens.

TKDE 
There it is 
Its on the previous page.
Easy to scroll back and for you to find what you want to.