Chess will never be solved, here's why

<<Your reaction was pathological. The specific pathology is some type of narcissism.>>

I know you're a fake, that's all. I know both of you shy away from reacting positively to challenges. All you want to do is have people respect you for what you definitely don't have.

Another 100's Post I made.

That is like 4th or 5th Time, doing this.

A genuine person, in the way of being a genuine intellectual or academic, wouldn't respond to challenges the way you do and wouldn't form alliances which are not to further knowledge and ideas, but power.

In no way do you behave like an intellectual. You do not respect ideas, other than your own. You don't support the ideal that people should be encouraged to think freely and well, and for themselves. And yet you are the best example of a person who could behave like that if he wished and chose, because you have the capability but not the intention. Others, whom you enjoy your merry-go-round with, are definitely less capable than you. I think you ought to fulfil your potential and not throw it away.

optimissed im not sure that you realize what tygxc means when he claims that chess is ultra weakly solved.

"  Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen, Nakamura said that and millions of human and engine games prove it" 

btw none of them ever said that.

and "millions" of games means nothing in terms of mathematical proof.

I am not at all sure @tygxc does either.

Perhaps you aren't sure. So? Do you need to be sure?

He's just going by the unclear nomenclature which has it that strongly solved is all moves, weakly solved is those relevant to an ultra-weak solution and an ultra-weak solution is no moves at all. It's bad nomenclature which undoubtedly contributes to the general confusion here.

I think my own ideas are effective without any thought. For instance, with no thought, I could define strongly solved as the set of game states for all positions and weakly solved as the set of game states for all positions corresponding to the ultra-weak solution. That took me a second to come up with and  whilst it may not be formally unambiguous, it's at least as effective as the nomenclature used here. All it would require would be a decision to understand it. Doing so would help others tremendously because understanding how others think about something you've thought about yourself can be very helpful. The general consensus here would be that it would be pointless and that points to how dull they are and certainly not to how clever.

So very good comment, because that came out of it.

lol

optimissed the reason why i asked about ur understanding of the ultra weak solution is that you agreed with tygxc's false claim that chess has been ultra-weakly solved.

I don't even know what this thread has degenerated into but I guess I could pitch my two cents.

The question whether chess can (theoretically) be solved (=outcome is clear from any position) can be easily answered. There is a finite amount of positions. I hope nobody's arguing that. On top of that if you accept that there is a finite amount of moves from any position until an outcome is reached, which is true with n-fold repetion and n-moves rule, one could theoretically check each position one by one, playing all possible ways the position can develop.
This would solve chess.

Now, realisticaly, that's obviously not possible. Not even with supercomputers.

yes.  this thread is basically one guy claiming that it could be solved in 5 years and the rest of us telling him how hes wrong.

     Yet it seems terribly presumptuous for us to think we have approached the apogee of analytic capabilities and there can NEVER be improvements in technique or technology sufficient to accomplish the task.

tygxc i literally cant find any instance of Sveshnikov making those solvability claims.  in fact, the only instance of someone citing Sveshnikov making those claims that i can find has been just you saying stuff on different forums

Don't you think that's just a waste of time and effort?

Every so often, someone else comes along and takes him seriously. Why? he's a spammer who repeats his rubbish whenever a new victim is seen. One or two people hold a perpetual discussion with him because they're roughly in the same obsessive frame of mind.

Most people on this thread are dodos.

i just got called out huh.  

     Perhaps we are ALL just a bunch of idiots, or old farts with nothing better to do. I know little of the technology involved and see a few new things when the same points are explained in a different manner.

     Besides, there is the amusement factor when posters become exercised and the invective spins out of control.

Do you really never stop, mpaetz?

Is your middle name Selfrighteous, by chance? You must be a real joy to live with.