@11570
"if a computer checking x number of moves fail to find a win,
how can you know a computer checking x +1 moves would also fail to find a win"
++ It is the other way around.
It took me a while to understand your thinking here (because it makes no sense). Your idea is that if you stick your head in the sand by looking at fewer variations, you are less likely to be proven wrong, therefore are more likely to be right?
To return to sanity, an incomplete search has an uncertain result.
You keep saying that as long as you treat uncertainty as certainty, it becomes certain.
Great thinking.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, is that what you've been saying for 5 or 6 years? That we should focus on the 99.99999999%+ of chess that is completely unsolved and just buckle down and figure it out? That's brilliant. You are a titan of intellect that knows no equal...
Tell you what...if you, by yourself, can formulate and prove one single new chess theorem/rule that you, by yourself, can explain point by point...and that theorem advances the algorithmic solving of chess in even the smallest degree...I will happily sign on for your efforts.