Chess will never be solved, here's why

@Optimissed, @llama_l has good understanding. See https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=627

where he addresses some ways you and @tygxc go wrong. (Specifically, he addresses your confusion about mathematical induction).

Note that he has on occasion used irony. This may have gone over your head.

Still daft. I don't even know what images you are talking about. I certainly need no prompting or cues...you provide those yourself when you hopelessly mangle logic and science and/or insult everyone around you...and I far from the only person that sees your antics for what they are.

Conspiracy theories ...I like it !

You know I got the "nobody believes you speech before about me cheating " even though I was innocent

Sounds like denial at this point

Conveniently examples are now trolls !

Better make an example out of...

Huh your denying stuff to think before you speak

Your confirmation bias is showing again. You really do have bats in your belfry...what were these images exactly? Would anyone else who is sane like to explain this newly hatched nonsense?

Of course you do. Be my guest!

For example post #12521 quoted and reinforced my helpful post to you explaining the difference between mathematical induction (a method of rigorous deduction) and inductive reasoning (which is always uncertain).

You could learn from his words, where he gives a simple illustrative example.

[Silly me, of course you couldn't, your psychological barriers are way too high].

@12545

"solving checkers took 18 years and over a thousand CPU years"
++ No. The majority of that was for creating Chinook and the endgame table base.
The actual solving took 2 years and 50 CPU, i.e. 100 CPU years.

@12548

"a major misunderstanding of what mathematics is"
++ Goldbach, Fermat, Riemann, Mersenne, Ramanujan are famous mathematicians for what they conjectured, not for what they proved and certainly not for proofs they criticized.
Besides many proofs were at first faulty and had to be corrected, e.g. the Four color theorem

@12542

"do anything to win an argument"
++ I do not want to win arguments, if I want to win, then I play chess. I am only after the truth.

should be judged using asic's. cpu's are y-day for this right ?

@12540

"I doubt humans can add anything today."
++ You should really play ICCF and see for yourself.

Here are some statements by the late ICCF GM Dronov, 3 times ICCF World Champion in a 2010 Interview:

'in a few years they will argue that after 1.e4 it is possible to make a draw'
'I always play to win'
'Why, in your opinion, do you manage to show outstanding tournament results, gaining a big plus in strong competitions?' 'General chess culture.'

Deleting imaginary pictures is indeed my masterstroke. But I can do more.

I will now make a brontosaurus disappear.

GONE!

Amazing, huh? Not a sign of it anywhere.

@12589

"Elroch will do anything to win an argument."
++ He just makes a fool of himself claiming 1 a4 or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 win for white.

Misrepresentation. No post of mine has claimed this.

Did you post an untruth because you are dishonest or because you are incompetent?

Zermelo's theorem is proved using mathematical induction. You can check with literally any mathematically competent person (a passing undergraduate would do, or a bright high schooler) if you are unable to understand the proof yourself.

Here is an example proof again. (The MIT server is a bit slow to download from but it gets there. For convenience, here is the proof:
)

@12593

"No post of mine has claimed this."
++ I claim 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 and 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white.
You vehemently denied this several times, thus claimed the opposite.