Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes, sure, it's always "everyone", isn't it.  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the mathematical study of optimizing agents. For the mathematical study of sequential games, see Combinatorial game theory. For the study of playing games for entertainment, see Game studies. For the YouTube series, see MatPat. For other uses, see Game theory (disambiguation).

Chess is a sequential game, so at that point you should continue with "Combinatorial game theory". That's the point at which you go wrong.

Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science.>>>>>

You will see that first on the list of applications of game theory is social science. Social science is a a loose or soft science where it is impossible to make exact mathematical models. All such models are on the basis of estimations and basically guesses. Therefore, as I pointed out, Models are not exact but approximations. Approximations are not suitable for solving chess. Therefore neither is game theory.

I have answered as accurately as I can in a short passage. If someone is intelligent they will understand the point I'm making. If they reject it outright without good argument, they cannot be taken seriously. I say this because I know very well the history of people here, and their incompetence.

"you will see that first on the list of applications of game theory is social science."

thats not the only application.

cmon man

Always anyone but btickler. Wherever he looks, he sees failure, except in those who see in him competence.

"you will see that first on the list of applications of game theory is social science."

thats not the only application.

cmon man

I suggest you learn about how game theory is used in the social sciences as well as in determining strategies for complex interactions between agents.

And then you can talk about it on a different thread, because it's nothing to do with this one.

How about this?

Looks like a Win for White.

Now what happens if you replace the missing Pawns?

Then who wins?

I know by now that you have dementia but I will explain once more. The discussion is about the nature of Theory of Games which some people still insist has some connexion to solving chess.

It cannot, because the models used it ToG do not need to be exact. It is however to do with models and as we know, models are no use in solving chess either. Basically, an algorithm is a model and so far they aren't reliable.

I don't see the win in the position you posted. Can you post one against Stockfish? (Any version from 8.)

The discussion is on the topic "Chess will never be solved, here's why".

To those of us with dementia only combinatorial game theory is relevant to the topic.

Those who have gone beyond dementia think their mother in law and the social sciences are relevant and any old junk like, "Basically, an algorithm is a model ..." (really?), will pass as rational debate.

I know by now that you have dementia but I will explain once more. The discussion is about the nature of Theory of Games, which some people still insist has some connexion to solving chess.

It cannot, because the models used in ToG do not need to be exact.

With all due respect, you are getting confused again, presumably by repeating the mistake of thinking the applications of parts of Game Theory distinct from Combinatorial Game Theory are relevant to chess.

Combinatorial Game Theory is a branch of mathematics. It is rigorous and unambiguous. It does not even have the complications associated with infinite objects, as it deals only with finite structures.

It is however to do with models and as we know, models are no use in solving chess either. Basically, an algorithm is a model and so far they aren't reliable.

No, combinatorial game theory consists of theorems about finite objects.