Chess will never be solved, here's why

Not sure how you think it is "meaningless", @BigChessplayer665.

It has 4.5 million active players up to an extremely high level. I used to be very keen, but it takes a lot of time to analyse positions to play well. I am a perfectionist though, and others are happy to play it like OTB play.

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.

I guess you cannot see the humor in someone who likes to think they are intellectually superior to everyone around them calling someone childish, and telling them they cannot even manage to make basic criticisms...only to flub it and misspell the word...opening themselves to...?

It's very meta, I don't expect you to appreciate it.

You and I have agreed with each other many times but also we have disagreed. Where we have disagreed, it has always seemed that you are missing or unable to understand some subtlety, which makes the point of disagreement more complex than you take it to be. It has happened so often that at first I put it down to lack of intelligence in you but perhaps it's intellectual laziness and complacency. Even so, your intellect is not to be trusted, by me and preferably (for you) not by yourself, either. Here, instead of the simple understanding, you are pushing a complex idea of games theory (excuse me ... combinational games theory) which cannot possibly yield the accuracy you demand of others.

Why? Because chess is not solved and therefore it cannot be depicted in theory. Therefore the theory cannot exist and is probably never going to exist. Therefore we must accept a scientific approach to solving chess.

You surround yourself with rather dumb people who hero worship you (they wouldn't if they were cleverer) and they wave their wings and gnash their teeth at people for you. And you entirely depend on them when you are trying to make bad arguments, as per usual.

I mean blitz and rapid is more accurate than daily

More accurate at what? Estimating blitz and rapid playing standard? Daily is daily and live is live. They are distinct.

I meant at my level there are not that many (enough playing daily ) for me to really compare my elo to fide maybe at beginner level it can be a good metric but at 2000 plus it becomes whoever plays the most games instead of skill

How could you possibly think that makes sense? You should be familiar with how rating systems work, and it is not about who plays the most games. The top of the daily ratings list has multiple players who have played not much more than 100 games (the actual top rated player is an anomaly, with only 6 games, and a lot of uncertainty).

You only explain things in your own mind. That means you explain how you would like it to be in a perfect world for Diogenes. You're crazy and there's no need for anyone to be "explained to" by you.That is what I think and I have no doubt that a lot of others think it too.

This is like being lectured to by a hamster.

This is like being lectured to by a hamster.

#11760

To be precise, some hamsters are smarter than some humans. A hamster that thought @Optimissed would gain anything by being lectured to would not be the sharpest tool in the hamster toolbox.

If you have the memory you claim, you'd have remembered it.

Paraphrased, it consists of identifying the dynamic structures which change games both in type and in balance and developing algorithms that recognise them and can analyse them to a sufficient degree of accuracy by means of employing sets of standard matches which trigger comparison based assessments which in turn trigger in-depth line selectors. In the 1990s, some kind of variable depth analysis started to be used, providing a focussed analysis on "sharp" positions but they were insufficient because all they could do was to increase the search depth. This would incorporate sets of dynamic destabilisation types. Chess consists of successive destabilisation and recrystalisations, either locally or overall. Fluidity can be local or universal and so can stasis.

This is pretty much off the top of my head because it's years since I thought about it and I forget the terminology I was using. If you comment on it I will be able to tell whether or not you're being positive. I'll jut ignore anything negative, if that's ok. Let's see if you understand what positive and negative imply, regarding criticism.

So basically, the initial focus is not on the openings, nor on endings. Both of those are crystalised structures. Instead, the initial focus of analysis is on middle game types. It requires a novel method of analysis but if it can be completed, it would make the so-called "strong" analysis much quicker as well as altering the meaning of "strong" in a useful direction, since the majority of positions in chess are useless from a solving point of view and if desired, they would be an adjunct to the solution. I think there's a fair chance that you won't like what I'm saying but I think it's the only way forward.

Only someone who believes what they are saying could commit as much as tygxc does. sI believe that someone trolling would also not react as tygxc does to the more blunt examples of his illogic.

@11684

"Chess will likely never be solved due to its immense complexity and the astronomical number of possible game variations."
++ Chess has 10^44 legal positions, of which 10^38 without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured, and of which Sqrt (10^38 / 10,000) = 10^17 are relevant to weakly solving Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.

The ongoing ICCF World Championship finals considered
90*10^6 positions/s/server * 2 servers/finalist * 17 finalists * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 2 a
= 1.9*10^17 positions.
So the effort is commensurate with the requirement and the 108 draws out of 108 games are at least part of the weak solution of Chess.

You sound remarkably like a senile old twerp, so that's sort of even.