Chess will never be solved, here's why

@10356

"tygxc's main fault is to engage trolls"
++ Probably. Most are either too lazy to read, or too stupid to understand
Games solved: Now and in the future

and
Checkers Is Solved

@10328

"It's too bad there isn't a fifty-move rule for Internet arguments."
Repetitio mater studiorum.
Repetition is the mother of study.
Many here still do not understand that it is not necessary to strongly solve a game to weakly solve it and that it is not necessary to weakly solve a game to ultra-weakly solve it.

Yup but it's more that they read then twist things to their hearts content to "win " an argument that really eeks me lol

And you're just tired, if your username is to be believed.

Let's be frank, there is one repetitive blunderer who doesn't even understand the last sentence of the abstract of the second link:

"Solving a game takes this to the next level by replacing the heuristics with perfection."

Hey! Im so bad at this game need someone to teach me, follow my Instagram: Auroravelvetx

^^Wow, a minus one in about one minute. That means that my comment is a very good one.

It worries me because it makes me realise that the motives of many people may not include prioritising reaching a truthful understanding but, more to the point, they are not trying so much to defend their ideas, beliefs and arguments so much as to defend themselves against what they perceive as an attack. That realisation did bother me at one time, yes. I think now I accept it more but it does mean I tend to write people off rather than to try to give them the benefit of any doubt. In some ways, that's a negative reaction of mine. However, it saves time or effort. This is a strange environment.

@stancco

As for me, since you ask; I couldn't care less. I just take it as an illustration of "small things amuse small minds".

"It's too bad there isn't a fifty-move rule for Internet arguments."
Repetitio mater studiorum.
Repetition is the mother of study.
Many here still do not understand that it is not necessary to strongly solve a game to weakly solve it and that it is not necessary to weakly solve a game to ultra-weakly solve it.

Do they? How interesting.

This sentence is or may be to the effect that next to be solved in order of difficulty will probably be Othello, which will require considerably more resources than draughts (checkers): the implication being that solving chess isn't on the horizon.

I noticed RATMAR making his usual commentary. He's fast becoming a member of the cabal, known to many as the "League of Losers". There are one or two semi-competent members so other members who are teetering on or over the edge of senile dementia are clearly required, to keep standards down or up, depending on whether you're standing on your head, which would be quite a mean feet, could it be acheived.