Chess will never be solved, here's why

@7921

"an inquiry into the possibility that chess is won/lost from the original position"
++ No, weakly solving chess is showing how from the initial position a path can be traced to the 7-men endgame table base draw. It starts with the initial position, it steps through drawn positions, both sides skillfully avoiding pitfalls that are losses, and it ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.
None of the decisive positions are relevant, except as pitfalls to avoid.

@7909

"By definition chess can be represented by math."
++ Yes, of course.
Tromp has proven a bijection between chess positions and natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ..., N.
Chess can be described as a finitary relation between the set of natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ... N} and itself: position x can lead to positions y1, y2, y3, ... yn.
The initial position 1 can lead to positions 2, 3, 4, ... 21.
Those can then lead to positions 22, 23, 24, 25... 421.
And so on.
The game-theoretic value of all 7-men positions is known.

well even the Jews acknowledged that He walked the Earth, they just dont believe He is the SON of God, even the Muslims also accept this, they as well dont think that He is the Son of God, im very glad and happy you have been with your Wife for 40 years, that must mean your a very great character indeed,  i think perception of propaganda is usually negative, im not even going to look it up, i mean look how many different sects of Christianity there are, do you really think that they are all wrong? maybe they each have a piece of the Truth.  i mean check out what is the Best selling book, and all the movies and the ways that people copy from this Book in their lyrics and band names everything,  feelings are superfluous, they come and go, they are a way to navigate through this Life,  We both know hearts can change, the world of feelings is endless, check out Carl Jung, , i am seeking the Concrete, something that is immaterial, the Dwarves persay something that is immovabale, no matter how much the haters thrwart and manipulate and muddle and dilute the perfect Image. 

Milhões e milhões de possibilidades

@7936

10^17 relevant positions

@7938

"a breakthrough in quantum computing is necessary"
++ No, present cloud computers can weakly solve chess in 5 years.

"whether black wins or white wins (with perfect play) is controversial" ++ No, it is a draw.

"whether e4 or d4 is the best first move" ++ Both draw.

You have to be the stupidest person I've ever come into contact with (and that includes @Optimissed). 

I've already shown in posts #7691, #7717 and #7738 that the definition you quote can lead to solutions that nobody would call solutions or eliminate the possibility of  even a theoretical solution and by not mentioning time and resources is irrelevant to the topic anyway. I've brought your attention to that fact in #7901 on the previous page.

You just continue to trot out the definition like some demented parrot.

at marattigan, you must not get out that much, if thats the stupidest, you sound dumb

Was that intended to be impressive? It's pathetic,

Prove it! Post a picture of your big red telephone. 

I haven't got round to visiting mental asylums much since playing concerts with the school military band. (They were the only people who wanted to listen.) 

Sounds like you're pretty familiar with those places.

Another retort might be that demonstrations of intellectual superiority are meaningless if there's no-one with the equipment to recognise it. A little fish in the sea doesn't recognise another fish that's more brainier. They only flee from bigger fishes that have big mouths to eat them with. That's exactly the case here.

I had a previous failed marriage. It was actually to a Jewish woman, originally from Montreal. I was running a small business which failed when there were general strikes in the UK in the early 80s, although I managed to get my money out, I was in debt. There was naturally a lot of stress. Although I openly admit my atheism, ever since she left me and abducted our daughter, illegally back to Canada, it's seemed as though there was something or somebody looking down on me and and protecting me. I met Christine very soon after, because I started volunteering for a kind of charity which she was running. Initially it was just a friendship but then we decided to stick together and have a child. It was hard to marry because the Canadian Supreme Court managed to lose the record of my divorce. It would be difficult to sort it out but maybe unnecessary. Our son is a member of this site, married, with a 6 month old child and an extremely good job. His wife is a hospital consultant. Christine had thought she wasn't going to live long but she's one of a very few people who seems to have made a full recovery from very severe ulcerative colitis, which nearly killed her before we met, at exactly the time my wife left me. She's 64. I'm 8 years older. She's a Christian. I think the entire saga of religion is made up but I would never argue that religion is a bad thing. I see it as a personal decision with no moral judgement one way or the other. I'm glad you appear to be happy doing what you're doing.

A lot of people here seem to make moral judgements on others, regarding just about everything. Whether they've had Covid jabs, whether they disagree on points some regard as moral issues, and so forth. Definitely an insidious pressure on many people to conform to a sort of humdrum, mediocre acceptance of complete ordinariness and basically maybe even a lack of confidence and hope. One person I know quite well here happened to mention by accident that she had special delegates passes that could and did enable her to meet many very famous politicians and also to vote for Presidential candidates and people were poo-pooing and saying she was making it up. I knew she was telling the truth because I had been able to work out who she was, within a small percentage of inaccuracy. Maybe I am a lot cleverer than most others here and I make no bones about it, probably to rub their noses in it, because there are people here who really care and are very unpleasant to any who stick their noses above the sandbags. Fortunately, most people on this site don't care and are here to play chess.

Anyone who continues such a profitless exchange ad infinitum must be. He was once highly intelligent, at a guess. He believes he still is. It's a belief set in stone and formed when he found he could manipulate data and logic sufficiently well to get a good job in online security. However, he and tygxc are very similar people indeed. Both are intelligent and obsessive by nature and both have developed massive intellectual blind spots. Their argument has literally been going on for many years.

Why someone would wish to continue an argument for years and years, with a person whom they consider the stupidest person they've ever come across, even including me, takes some understanding. Unless they are indeed extremely similar people to one-another, of course.

I think that chess will never be solved. The interminable argument between Rattigan and tygxc isn't even on topic and is irrelevant to the main question, because they're mainly arguing about a very limited type of pseudo-solution, called a "weak" solution, where the assumption is already made that chess is a draw and the "weak pseudo-solution" is just about finding moves that can confirm the draw. It isn't what is normally thought of as a solution to chess at all. The shortcuts proposed by tygxc are verging on the ludicrous, as is his estimated time scale, whereas Rattigan certainly isn't taking any shortcut regarding his own argumentation, which is going round and round and round in circles, completely unproductively. It's possible to tell there's an inbuilt assumption that chess is a draw, because of the types of moves which are considered necessary to analyse and the types that aren't.

I don't think the O.P. is accurate either and this is just one of several similar threads on the same topic.

I'm sure your first wife could yield quite a bit of truth that explains your various insecurities and manias.  She was an heiress, according to you anyway, did she support that small shop you mentioned?  You seem to have been off the beam your whole life, going all the way back to your psychic girlfriend that convinced you that you had paranormal abilities in your late teens/early adulthood.

Maybe give the "everyone is beneath me" schtick a rest for a while.

word

Word, Rick, Word?!

I'm absolutely sure you're right. Also, drawing attention like this to all your own insecurities is clearly a cry for help. A very cunningly disguised cry for help too, if I may be allowed to say so and to congratulate you on it.

I'm sure we'll respond to your cry for help, presently but on second thoughts, I would hardly have written any of that were I insecure. I would be only too happy to introduce you to my ex wife. I can send you a pic of my daughter if you ask nicely. She used to be a high rated competitive rock climber, she has a psychology PhD and is a counsellor/psychotherapist a bit like my wife.

Incidentally I still have paranormal abilities but I don't use them much. I know you "know" they're impossible. Must make you feel ever so secure to know that.