Chess will never be solved, here's why

E has anger issues. I can remember back around 2010 or 11, it was very obvious then. I think something is being done to calm it. P definitely has too. Do you think I should take some time off this thread?

Don't worry about it. Quite honestly at this stage I don't give a monkeys. You're absolutely right about the issues though. By and large I like interacting. Elroch and player both bore me to tears though. Elroch because he constantly tries to seem clever and player for obvious reasons. I somtimes get annoyed at E with all his showing off and manipulation of people. His latest thing was because I think that he's a dishonest person. He tries to discredit people who are more than a match for him. He argues dishonestly much of the time. I actually quite like him when he's behaving normally but he's untrustworthy, selfish and vain. So when I'm telling him I'm more intelligent than he is, it's for a reason. Two reasons. I am, by quite a long way and he doesn't like it. He doesn't like the fact of it and when he tries his usual putdowns and dishonest arguments to try to get his way and impress people with his beautiful intellectuality, he doesn't like being told it.

BC I didn't call you a retard.
And it seems you want a double standard as to who can criticize.
Something like O does. He's intensely hypocritical.
And I've caught him calling Dio and Elroch 'troll' in forums where or when they're absent. But he's almost kind of 'afraid' of Dio these days!
Worried. Lol!

BC - Suggestion: Keep studying in those psychology classes.
If you try hard enough - you will eventually learn.
Instead of 'sigh' and mental kneejerking....
That's why you're there right? To learn?
Or are you in those classes just so you can 'strut' later?
Won't help you if that's the case.
And remember - I didn't force you to read my posts nor to be here.
You choose to read and then complain? More and more like 'O'.

@Opt, a minor correction, I don't actually "try" to create any impression and how I "seem" is simply a consequence of what I post.

I do try to make my posts absolutely correct, precise, informative. I recognise there's always room for improvement in how I communicate - in a forum it is important for others to understand what you write rather than merely being correct.

You're certainly trying hard to be nonchalantly superior but I've had so many conversations with you where you've been unable to understand points which would be understoood by a moderately intelligent person and I actually know that you have a very great interest in me, since why else would you constantly invite me back to your threads and then ban me? I played the game for a while, to see where it would lead. I don't think there's an answer to that, since so far as I can see, you're following the same path towards mental degeneration on which others have preceded you. So well done for being nonchalantly unconcerned but you must have some insight about what's happening to you.

It could be a personality thing to some extent but pretending all the time doesn't tend to confirm that. Only player afar is sticking up for you. You clearly need someone to take your side but it leaves me and others wondering just how close your relationship is. Your problem is that you can only argue by putting other people down. You were doing it with ty, today You do it with everyone, given a chance. It's no use your pretending I can't see through you. You must really dislike people.

Dio and I have been getting on very well recently. We've had several conversations and no harsh words from either side.

I think probably BigChessplayer is idyllis. Could be wrong but same mix of genuine concern for others and mistaken understanding. I don't see the point, Bigchessplayer, in talking to someone who is completely dishonest and who also lives in a fantasy world. What are you trying to achieve? The similarity between them is why I think they may be the same. You seem alright to me so surely best to keep it that way?

Again, I am not "trying" at all.

Difficult advice: discuss the facts and give up the willy-waving.

Elroch blocked me and harbinger from his glorious threads for the umpteenth time but this time I took very great care to give no reason for that at all. I mean, not even a reason that a minor paranoiac might find compelling. There were objections to the fact that he'd done that and I just needed to find out for sure whether Elroch is a dishonest, manipulative person. I did find out for sure. The only reason he's here is that he's hounded all the better posters out of his threads and he's lonely. He talks the talk but I don't find him to be a clever or interesting guy, of the type I would feel it a privilege to converse with. There are a few here whom I really do think that of. Quite frankly I can't imagine any highly intelligent person wishing to converse with him..

The fact remains that you blocked me yet again from your threads simply for politely disagreeing with you. Now, many, many others have had the same experience with you. It's obvious that you feel just as threatened by me as player does. At the moment there are no others on this site whom I have issues with.

I knew you back around 2011. You were just the same then. Probably actually hated then though, because you were completely out of control at that time.

You should get around more.

""plausible doesnt equal proof"
++ Try to come up with a plausible error distribution that explains 105 draws in 105 games."

i dont have to. its on you to prove that none such exists. this is basic proof LMFAO. your math education is clearly not past highschool, and you certainly didnt remember what was in highschool math.

i love how tygxc continues to prattle off the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

tygxc what makes you think you know better than mathematicians? answer this.

its fully dunning kruger.

yes, exactly. tygxc doesnt understand what a mathematical proof entails. he thinks his heuristics (statistical estimates) are "proof", when anyone with even a little bit of mathematical knowledge has quickly pointed out that thats not the case.

He also is bizarrely claiming that the burden of proof is on others to provide a counterexample.

this isn't even math proof standards anymore. it's just fallacious to begin with. its known as an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

earth's orbit decays very slightly but its progressing until the process reverses

I did actually convince him (along with other people ) that blitz chess might be good because of it's competitive nature even tho otb turnements are all rapid and that playing only rapid isn't the only way to get good at chess (rapid is a way though )

So he does change his opinion occasionally

Even if he has the druning crougar effect

very interlectuowl good nice top post and quite right

The important thing to be aware of is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Anyone 100% familiar with this should probably skip the rest of my post!

In deductive reasoning you start with absolute facts and deduce other facts. An example would be solving a mate in 2 problem. This consists of finding the first move and showing that every legal reply to the move leaves you with a way to mate in one. In the end you can be rightly certain of the answer.

Inductive reasoning is different. It is really about generalisation. The information you have is examples, but what you are really interested in is general facts.

Inductive reasoning is source of all knowledge about the real world (things like the above chess problem are about abstractions that we represent in the real world. Chess is an abstraction represented with wooden pieces or computer screens).

Inductive reasoning works by starting with a state of belief about the real world, getting empirical data and then revising that state of belief. In most cases, the beliefs start very uncertain and the data reduces that uncertainty but never removes it, The only real exception is where the belief is that something exists and an observation confirms this (which assumes the observation is entirely precise and reliable - not generally the case in the real world).

The scientific method relies 100% on inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can be used within the abstract models that are used in science, but this is a distinct matter.

Interestingly, AIs are very much inductive reasoners. They use large numbers of examples to refine a very general model with up to billions of parameters.

The main paradigm of inductive reasoning is Bayesian probability theory, provably the only way to deal quantitatively with uncertainty (with some mild assumptions)!

I suspect I have not done a great job of communicating this, but I would say it is one of the things that everyone would do well to be familiar with and recognise when they are discussing technical topics. Note that it is highly relevant to areas like the justice system as well (although lawyers are unreasonably opposed to Bayesian reasoning being used by jurors!)