Chess will never be solved, here's why

No, read my explanation. Try to understand it too, rather than thinking you're right on the basis of your incorrect understanding. For practical purposes chess is NOT a game of perfect information. I already explained why, twice at least.

Yes but he was wrong, since a full game tree for chess from the initial position isn't possible. Does that make you severely subnormal because it's obvious to me that you don't know what's going on?

No but it does raise doubts about yourself. What he wrote was:

the terms of "ultra weakly solved, weakly solved, strongly solved" are all well defined and require rigorous proof.

That is correct and your comment, "a full game tree for chess from the initial position isn't possible" is not connected with it in any way. So your first sentence is an application of what you as Humpty Dumpty mean by "logic", which itself is not connected in any way with the accepted meaning of "logic".

You already pointed out maybe yesterday that you never know when I'm joking and when I'm not.

When you spend half a page listing faults which describe you to a T and accusing the rest of the universe of suffering from them, I think my uncertainty is understandable.

You probably also think Dio and Elroch aren't suffering any cognitive and/or mental difficulties.

I haven't seen anything to suggest any such problems, so you would be correct. 

aggro!

You don't have the ability to tell and you are also someone who cannot be trusted to be honest if you could tell. Your opinion is worth zilch.

@10388

"these 3 definitions implement very differently for different games" ++ Yes.

"for chess, weakly solved and strongly solved are both >10^40 endeavors" ++ No.
Strongly solving Chess requires 10^44 legal positions, weakly solving 10^17 relevant positions.

Draughts (checkers) is analysed and understood, so it's a GOPI.

Consider the chess position after 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. You and I know that it's a clear loss for white and yet there are two people here who aren't sure and who want it analysed. For us, that opening is perfect information since we know we have the information necessary to deduce the result with best play by both sides. For them, the information they're given isn't enough, so it isn't perfect.

... + much drivel

@10448

"Nobody has ever agreed with your 10^17"
++ I tried to explain as clearly as I could. If people fail to understand, it is not my fault.

Yes it is. Your explanation is farcical. Only a half-wit could possibly understand.

@10448

"Nobody has ever agreed with your 10^17"
++ I tried to explain as clearly as I could. If people fail to understand, it is not my fault.

I trusted the mathematicians back then and disbelieved you. Now I don't so if you can find the explanation I'll read it again. You may have quick access to it, rather than me looking for an hour.

The terms were introduced by games theorists. They have no connection to "solving chess" since the so-called strong solution is known to be impossible, so what are you talking about?

You can't prove a definition, by the way. A definition is a descriptive meaning that is applied to a name.

This sounds like you think the relevant meaning is the vague imprecise one in common English (where words are defined based on other words which very often have imprecise meanings themselves). It is not. The relevant meaning is that of a definition in the mathematical sciences, based on axioms and other definitions that could in principle be processed by a computer in the same way as they are by a human reasoning about the subject.

A definition is an unambiguous description of an abstract entity (or property of such entities, etc.) that could in principle be implemented in a computer with complete clarity.

If you keep listening to Elroch, you are not going to learn a thing.

Says the guy who has failed to repair such failings in his own understanding.

what kinda beef is going on here