Chess will never be solved, here's why

You have to admit that it's a bit odd how all of Elroch's observations are "very good", since I've seen some rather poor ones. When you're talking about him it's almost like something he might say if he were talking to himself. If only for that reason alone, I wish you'd stop pumping him up. The rest of us mainly get by without any reliance on the accolades of lesser beings. How come Elroch needs your help (in your estimation?) You often call one of his comments good when it's bad and, for instance, one of mine bad when I know it's good.

I'm only guessing here because I looked at the comment for 10 seconds. So yes, I think I may be able to guess what he's talking about. He may be alluding to a reverse analysis method which homes in from checkmate positions to see how they may be forced. Not something I like as a sole methodology but I will concede that it's an essential part of this project. If I were conducting the project, I would separate it into three sections and run all three concurrently. It's the middle-game project which is the most interesting, by far.

It takes quite a lot of you people to try to rescue the situation for your master.

But nothing more than bluster from you and no arguments for me to answer.

hello

has any beaver bowler ever tried to solve it w/a 16 square or 144 sq board ?...just wondering. as it might lead to s/t - or already has.

He's your master, apparently, because all you can make is noise.

If Elroch doesn't need saving, erm ... then why are you trying so hard to save him?

It isn't meaningful, except insasmuch as it's correct. It's also somehing I've been saying for five or six years, here and on related threads. The simplistic thinking comes from those who think that chess has to be analysed from front to back or from the back, backwards. Neither is going to work since both get bogged down in the middle game. What is needed is a different approach which starts in the middle game. I mentioned it with some detail years ago but the nature of this thread is such that the clever ones mostly give up on it, due to lack of progress, caused by the impasse between tygxc and you lot: the mathematicians' stable. Neither side seems capable of the necessary creativity, or of recognising it. Mainly dumbos.

you misunderstand tygxc. basically, tygxc cannot even let the consideration of the idea that a stronger engine would find a win enter his fantasy. So he has to twist the meaning of the question to fit his fantasy.

'oh they couldnt have been pointing out a critical flaw of my "logic", they must be making that flaw in logic on their own, it couldnt be that they are pointing out that that is the exact logic I am using. So im going to instead 'correct' their flaw in logic, and pretend that they arent pointing out that that flaw is used in my arguments'

that is what is essentially going on in tygxc's head. the question was directly phrased to point out how tygxc was making obvious fallacy, but tygxc is so intellectually dishonest that it didnt even occur to him that they were presenting something that was in HIS argument.

@Optimissed, I understand the relationship between chalk and cheese.

It is that chalk is chalk and cheese is cheese.

Likewise for science and mathematical propositions. They do not overlap.

No you wouldn't, since you are not capable of understanding anything remotely novel and creatively interesting. Neither are you the only inept person round here, with a tendency towards would-be despotism.

Mega only appeared after the conversation stopped because the only way E could defend his position was by misrepresenting my arguments and deliberately answering incorrect posts. Or maybe he's so useless he didn't know he was doing that. At this point I don't know, but E trolled the conversation and then Mega appeared.

Illogic.
tygxc's illogic.
Illogic is the term.
Does even illogic have its own internal logic?
Yes. But its still illogic.
------------------------------------
Do several people here have insights into tygxc's illogic?
Definitely.
They might and do qualify it differently - but there's general consensus.
He's pushing illogic.
Why?
What will happen if this whole process continues here for another ten years? I'm not sure of tygxc's age.
But if he has lots of living time left - 
then the effects of the forum might eventually lead to some self-discovery by him. And discovery of other things. By him.
Like the generic side of logic and math and science.
And that logic not only binds math together and binds science together ...
but logic also binds them together and with each other.
----------------------------------
when there's arguments between those that deny science/logic and those that recognize reality ... one often then sees arguments about 'rules of logic' and what logic is.
In other words - even with logic as with science - deniers will try to put a box around it. Their box. Their rules.
And then from there - argue from their invalid premises.
While projecting what they do.
Goes on constantly on the website.
---------------------------------------------
Does tygxc believe his own illogic?
Always an issue with many pushing overt denials and distortions ... and trolling too.
But there's a general pattern ...
oscillation between self-belief and deceit.
Why? How?
Because of imperative compulsion.
Whoever - begins not to care whether he/she believes his/her own nonsense or not. 
And has already committed into not even considering or being aware as to whether he/she so believes his/her illogic and denials and disinformation and projections and lies and other falsehoods.
That grows on them.
Becomes more and more obvious.

I made an argument about the odds of repeated even numbers of errors occurring. I pointed out the difficulties since there's no error profile available UNTIL chess is solved. Exactly one hour later E made that point and accused me of not understanding it. I mean, that's completely hopeless of him. We have to go with the facts as they stand and we know that he has used stochastic arguments when it suits him and now he was opposing one because it didn't suit him. So E had already completely lost the argument but of course, his henchment weren't capable of realising he'd lost it. And since then he's obviously been floundering and only kept afloat by the heroic attempts of some sheep. I pointed out that he's a troll and he actually claimed that he had approached Ghostess who had confirmed that she really likes him and doesn't dislike him at all. He just isn't honest and neither, it seems, are you.

I made an argument about the odds of repeated even numbers of errors occurring. I pointed out the difficulties since there's no error profile available UNTIL chess is solved. Exactly one hour later E made that point and accused me of not understanding it. I mean, that's completely hopeless of him. We have to go with the facts as they stand and we know that he has used stochastic arguments when it suits him and now he was opposing one because it didn't suit him. So E had already completely lost the argument but of course, his henchment weren't capable of realising he'd lost it. And since then he's obviously been floundering and only kept afloat by the heroic attempts of some sheep. I pointed out that he's a troll and he actually claimed that he had approached Ghostess who had confirmed that she really likes him and doesn't dislike him at all. He just isn't honest and neither, it seems, are you.

No you wouldn't, since you are not capable of understanding anything remotely novel and creatively interesting. Neither are you the only inept person round here, with a tendency towards would-be despotism.

There was no point. You're effectively a child who cannot construct even a meaningful critisism. I can't answer a point where it doesn't exist.

I'm not a troll.

There was no point. You're effectively a child who cannot construct even a meaningful critisism. I can't answer a point where it doesn't exist.