Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

You make quite a lot of typos and especially grammatical errors. I'm not childish enough to want to draw your attention to them. That was a typo. That's the sort of childishness you rely on. Or was it a joke?

You are bereft of any sense of reality, so that makes it even. Does it? Well, maybe not.

Also I did set out a strategy for creating algorithms to solve the middle game, several years ago. The words I used may have been too long for you.

Are you saying we've played each other??

This person is just the same.

Science has its rules and procedures. It consists of a systematic fixing of variables to discover relationships between them. Mathematics is an ideal too which is used to manipulate data in engineering and scientific projects among others, to render it into a useable mode. Yet neither depends on the other since science can be carried out with no more than simple arithmetic, as I pointed out.

Actually, there is an important point here. I hope someone has the interest to think on it.

The point is that mathematics is enormously useful in science, but strictly speaking the mathematical part - about what is abstractly true - is separate from the scientific part - applying the model to draw scientific conclusions.

For example, Fourier Theory is of enormous use in quantum mechanics. But the theory was developed long before the science even existed. Then there was a mature mathematical theory available to be applied (eg to infer the Uncertainty Principle).

But chess cannot be turned into a set of equations. Therefore, maths can have no bearing on solving chess, except statistically and tygxc's argument was statistically based.

Solving chess is a problem in combinatorial game theory. Mathematics in its broad sense is only of limited help because of the lack of generality and the arbitrariness of the problem. Thus there is less scope for clever deduction and more demand for heavy number crunching.

And statistics never helps get nearer a proof. The very best it can do is to give confidence in what needs to be proven.

Thankyou, Diamond. When in Turkey, do as the Turks do, I often think. Otherwise, it will not be understood.

Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls.

I could see you were fooling but even so it means that you pick up bad habits, Almaz. I like Turkey btw. A lot.

What;s your strength in FIDE rating points? My favourite speed is about 2 1/2 hours for all the moves but most games around here are 90 minutes each player or so.

Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls Almaz.

He's a bit higher rated than you at rapid, O. But you are both decent players, IMO.