Chess will never be solved, here's why

I honestly think it's caused by low intelligence, Elroch, since you must know you're being dishonest but you don't understand the effect that will have on the reception of rest of your pronouncements from on high.

He didn't specify how many of each colour. He's getting at something else. Basically trying to trick people into agreeing with him. The question was, or course, unintelligible and nonsense.

With all due respect, you shouldn't guess if you want to find out the truth, you should reason! One thing you can do is consider possible things that might happen and how that affects what you can deduce.

First let me explain that in this thought experiment what you are doing is inductive reasoning. You have empirical examples and you are trying to arrive at general knowledge.

The simple truth is that such reasoning always leaves uncertainty, except in the sole case where the empirical examples comprise all possible examples.

So in the example of the urn, you need to take ALL of the balls out to determine they are all white. If you think this is not so, take out all of the balls except one and tell me what colour the last one is.

You can't DEDUCE its colour. What you can do is have a confidence in what colour it is. If there was only one black ball in an urn with a million balls it would be unlikely that you would happen to take out the 999,999 white ones first and leave the black one. In fact the probability of this is exactly 1 in a million. But this is not impossible. Merely rather unlikely.

The relevance to this forum is when people try to claim that seeing the results of an incomplete set of examples PROVES something about the other ones. This is simply wrong. It merely provides statistical evidence. As a relevant example, it's just like when you try to solve a difficult mate in 2 problem, where you have checked 14 of the 15 responses to a candidate solution move and found you can mate in all of them, and you think the last move looks a bit silly. Anyone who thinks you can be SURE the last response to your move permits a mate needs to think again!

There are black balls and white balls. You pull out x balls and they were all white. How many more do you have to look at to know there are only white balls left? A kindly perspective would be that he was checking to see how many people can read. Just childish rubbish though. Maybe he meant "before you know all the remaining balls are black". Even so, a trick question which doesn't relate to chess because chess has a strong element of determinism.

Since he's made many such feeble attempts before, I'm starting to think his mind's going. I suppose it could be interpreted as a joke though.

Good post!

And I want to post a short version of what I posted earlier ...
If its going to take 500 years to solve from 8 pieces on the board to 9 pieces and then 25,000 years to get to 10 pieces (which tygxc wants to call 'tracing')
and so on with another 500 multiplier each time then its easy to see that one would never ever get to 32 pieces before the sun engulfs the earth in about 7 billion years or whatever. (earth's orbit decays very slightly but its progressing)

Apart from it being completely irrelevant to chess? This wasn't about inductive reasoning. It was about simple common sense.

I wonder how long Elroch will continue to try to sell the story that undetermined results of chess games are down to chance? It's nonsense and if he doesn't have the intelligence to understand that, so be it.

I don't want to explain why, because too many people here incorrectly believe that tygxc is wrong. The point is that when we do learn how to experiment properly, the result that chess is a draw will emerge with a very high degree of confidence. Elroch is trying to pretend that it isn't like any other, normal, scientific experiment. In my opinion he's showing he's clueless.

Trouble is, tygxc has made some mistakes and attracted a degree of derision due to his uncompromising attitude, so it's difficult to tell you that ty is actually along the right lines now and Elroch is wrong, because Elroch interprets chess results as an ideal, stochastic process.

Elroch constantly outclasses 'O'.
But also - almost everybody does.
Its become more obvious recently.
Even some of the worst people on the site do better than the O-person.

You just keep thinking that.

You haven't defined narcissism properly.
Look it up so you know the meaning.
Narcissists hate themselves?
Hardly.
Plus they vary.
So you've made a syllogism bc. You'll make many.
Anyway - Elroch's post about the N balls was very good.
Like his post about 'perfect information' doesn't mean something can be solved.

A post just disppeared.

Anyway yes, it's definitely down to narcissism. It seems odd that a narcissistic person would allow someone as apparently daft as playr to be an apologist for him, unless he was actually controlling him and wanted to seem to be a different personality, in which he's failed, because they are the same. But that could just be two likes attracting.

Narcissism is one of the main characteristics of psychopathy.

You working in the field or want to work in the field?

Naturally insecure yes - and O is obviously very insecure.
But that doesn't mean 'hating oneself'.
You might have his tendency to credentialize though ...
Are you going to be narcissistic yourself because you're in 'psychology classes'?
If you're that bad now - you'll be worse when you get your degree.
(EE has a five year psychology degree ... Lol)
But good news - you'll be in better shape than O.
That's virtually guaranteed.

With all due respect, this is the sort of error good students learn quite early not to make.

Let's think of it like my example with drawing balls from an urn. You say that since you have drawn 105 white balls, every further ball that you draw will be white. Most perceptive people (maybe you now) will understand that is not correct, but let's try to make it simpler.

If you (misguidedly) believe all future games would definitely be a draw if you have had 105 draws then, logically, there must have been some precise number of games after which you became certain, having previously not been entirely sure. Let this number of games be N. Then it had to be the case that after N-1 consecutive draws, you could not be certain all future results would be draws, but after one more draw you became certain that all future results would be draws. This is patently ridiculous. Intuitively, the difference between any positive probability and zero is enormous, and can't be bridged with inductive evidence.

The only thing that makes sense here is that if you start with any uncertainty in the results, that uncertainty will always persist. It gets smaller and smaller, but not ever leaping to zero.

I recommend studying Bayesian reasoning to anyone who wants to understand how to deal with uncertainty in the real world. It is indeed the "logic of science".

Both computers were powered up together there.

Elroch, there are different kinds of uncertainty. There's the uncertainty of stochasticism and also the uncertainty as to whether your Auntie managed to post that important letter because she was held up by a bank robbery.

In one scenario the cat is either alive or dead due to quite a different category of reasons than in the other.

Do you think player is going to successfully convince everyone that I'm thick or that you're thick?

I have very little interest in you, no interest in such vague concepts as exactly how thick you are, and none of my posts address this. Technical discussions are not about getting points against others, they are about improving understanding.

I discuss facts, and as part of this I have pointed out factual inaccuracies in your posts on many occasions (such as the incorrect use of standard terminology, important to technical discussions).

Presumably (based on previous examples) on reading the last sentence you descended into a blazing rage and your overiding instinct to protect your ego is driving you to find a way to lash out, probably including some vacuous (i.e. lacking in any specific content) insults. Maybe this is as natural as the barking of a dog, but it is not how others of us act. I am never motivated in this way.

Perhaps you can learn something from that, but I am not over-optimistic.

That is an excellent post.
And its not about me.
Will Elroch's great post be wasted on tygxc?
I don't know. 
It will be 'wasted' on O - but that's okay.
But it won't be wasted on others.
Regarding tygxc though - and his 'resistance' and Elroch's wonderful patience (while still being efficient) 
Although Elroch is right - tygxc's 'persistence and refusal to agree' is still doing a kind of job here - providing a function.

I didn't read it, player

I did notice there was one.

I thought I wouldn't bother.

After all, it's not by someone

I think I can learn something from

Except how not to behave

To others.

Would you recommend it?

I'm perfectly willing to

Take your advice

If you think I should.

I've never taken your advice

Before.