Chess will never be solved, here's why

     Naturally, all my criticisms were correct. How do I know? By this time it's quite obvious that I'm so much better than any of you that you can't usually make any headway. I'm definitely boasting when I tell you that 15 years ago, people were telling me I was the best debater on Facebook in the English language. I'm also teasing you and taking the p---. But you're outclassed. Now watch all your efforts deflecting to attacking the hyperbole.

You simply try far too hard and make fools of yourselves when you do. And at other times, like claiming that all the points I was arguing against were correct. It's just childish, to alter your standpoints and claims, depending on who you're arguing with. Mental age of six stuff..

Option to 'lose a move' means black can't have a win?
Lol.  'somebody' wanting to think through arbitrary semantics instead of by logic?
If white played a knight out for first move and then put it back again - 
he'd be down by two moves.  
Its logically impossible to arbitrarily rule out the possibility that black has a forced win regardless of statistics indicating that its more often white playing for the win and black playing to not lose than the reverse. 
Illogical propositions get a lot of attention ?
Could be seen as 'use' rather than attention.

Clearly you missed it. Elroch posted to the effect that "tygxc is right on all points".

No, I made no such post. Not even slightly similar. To be frank, I think you are having a bit of a turn.

By this time it's quite obvious that I'm so much better than any of you that you can't usually make any headway. I'm definitely boasting when I tell you that 15 years ago, people were telling me I was the best debater on Facebook in the English language. I'm also teasing you and taking the p---. But you're outclassed. Now watch all your efforts deflecting to attacking the hyperbole.

     Well, I guess this obviates the need of any further actual forums (discussions where different people put forth their opinions and argue about them). Now all we need do is consult the self-proclaimed (semi-?) divine oracle and receive the truth from the all-knowing authority.

     It's such constant horsebleep directed at us lesser beings that make some posters seem so comical that most others simply disregard them, even when they may have worthwhile points to make.

Clearly you missed it. Elroch posted to the effect that "tygxc is right on all points". It was just his lazy way of imagining he'd pulled a stroke and "refuted" my arguments against tygxc without having to think, by imagining that such pronouncements can carry weight. Naturally, all my criticisms were correct. How do I know? By this time it's quite obvious that I'm so much better than any of you that you can't usually make any headway. I'm definitely boasting when I tell you that 15 years ago, people were telling me I was the best debater on Facebook in the English language. I'm also teasing you and taking the p---. But you're outclassed. Now watch all your efforts deflecting to attacking the hyperbole.

You simply try far too hard and make fools of yourselves when you do. And at other times, like claiming that all the points I was arguing against were correct. It's just childish, to alter your standpoints and claims, depending on who you're arguing with. Mental age of six stuff..

Couldn't find 'FIDE' ratings for chess engines and supercomputers.
Maybe there is no such thing.
Carlsen is in the high 2800's it seems.  Might break 2900 someday?

But some engines/computers have an Elo rating.
I saw more than one over 3400.
Elo is the same as FIDE ?  Somehow I doubt that ...  but its a long time since I researched the rating systems.
But if the strongest computer chess is 500 points stronger than Carlsen - then maybe they could even spot him material !
Maybe that can be looked up too !  

Yeah.  It's complete garbage.

Do you realise I could report that?

But I won't. Look, you have a PhD in statistics. You are an expert on stats and on some branches of physics but you claim to be an expert on everything and constantly make claims from authority, as do others, here on this thread.

No, I claim that there are experts on (almost) everything. I refer to those experts. That is how to be right as often as possible.

This is as clear as the fact that if you want an assessment of a chess position, referring to Carlsen's opinion is more reliable than referring to your own opinion. That is not to say that the latter is not laudable, it's just not as reliable. i.e. it is going to be wrong more often.

I've beaten you in arguments and debates many times

exhibit one example

but you're too conceited to realise it and on this thread, you have some others eating out of your hand. You're pretty bright and you deserve credit for that. The others are not as bright as you. They are not capable of seeing when you "lose" a debate and they tend to assume you always win them. That's often because you falsely claim that you have. I'm just saying that I know you by now. I know your strengths and I can see your weaknesses. Your assumption you're always right amplifies them and they can't be missed. There's no-one else who is as bright as you here

I would not claim that

and they have a hard time following either of us. Obviously I'm not counting myself as one of this group. This is a group of people who seem to need each others' support and confirmation. You as much as the others and naturally, you're going to find yourself or attract a group that fills those needs, because it's mutual. You only really ever debate where you feel safe.

I mean, this guy playerafar is a complete lunatic.

I could report you for that. And I can't see why you would say it.

All I'm doing is being here and disagreeing with posts that I think are wrong. I don't have to do it but I do do it partly because I'm interested in what is happening here. btickler isn't far behind him and if you're critical of overt egotism and obsessive self-adoration, look to yourselves. You're the ones who aren't normal & I can get along with anyone. If I choose to. I'm also agreeing with posts that are correct, even if they're by someone I don't care for. I gave up hoping you could be "objective" years ago. You can't. You're all three conceited and massive projectionists, in reality.

Let the epic movie commence!

All very similar to one-another. None of you like being seen for what you are and when it happens, you all three attack.

Occam's Razor tends to be a lazy way of telling people to "think what I think".

These engines and supercomputers are only as good as the people that make them. To say that Carlsen will "almost certainly lose" is a broad statement. How can you be so sure, anyway? If anyone knew whom Carlsen who was going to win or lose to, then you might as well challenge him yourself, thinking, "Yeah, no problem beating this guy."

On what part of his anatomy had he placed it?

You seem to be arguing over your own semantics. I did not tell you that you claimed the person was always right.

[snip]

"Elroch posted yesterday to tell us that ty is completely correct, apparently in all points, according to Elroch. "

Oops, you're busted.

You seem to be arguing over your own semantics. I did not tell you that you claimed the person was always right.

[snip]

"Elroch posted yesterday to tell us that ty is completely correct, apparently in all points, according to Elroch. "

Oops, you're busted.

Let's see how others interpreted your statement:

playerafar wrote: