Chess will never be solved, here's why

tygxc has made a bit of a fool of himself over the centuries but it does seem these days that he's altered his position and is backing an expeiment which is now ongoing.

Elroch has claimed many times, it seems, that science has nothing to do with analysing chess. He is completely wrong in this regard. Since he sees fit to exercise a non-existent authority over those disagreeing with him by claiming he's a mathematician and anyone disagreeing with him doesn't understand maths, I decided to tell him that my son is a mathematician and far, far more qualified than Elroch, which is true since he has a PhD and elroch is as qualified as my wife because they both have masters degrees. But my wife is by far the more intelligent of them.

My son agrees with me, basically because he gave his opinion on the relationship between mathematics and chess and I accepted it and have quoted it here since I can see its merit. So Elroch made a personal attack on my son. Don't forget that Elroch obsessively uses his supposed authority as a mathematician.

I know he's wrong. My son says he's wrong for his own reasons, since chess cannot be depicted mathematically. If that is true then chess can only be approached on a scientific basis. But the reason Elroch is clinging to his story is because he wants to control people and he can only do that by claiming intellectual authority over them. To repeat, my son is far more qualified in his opinion than Elroch. He is a much more able mathematician.

So tygxc is now arguing from the correct standpoint. The point is that chess is inaccessible to mathematics and therefore the kind of proofs you are hoping for are unavailable and always will be. Science uses different types of proofs from maths .... inductive rather than deductive. If anyone doesn't understand the difference then ask me. The scientific approach, which Elroch wongly claims is incorrect, is the only possible approach to this. The tables have turned and for all his clumsiness at self-expression and past and even present mistakes about Grandmaster svesnikov, tygxc is right in backing the scientific approach, which will offer a result with an attached confidence factor, as all scientific experimentation does. And although Elroch has an MMath in statistics and I have to make do with my qualification in philosophy, I do have the advantage of being considerably more intelligent than him. It's easy to tell that because of the way he's incapable of discussing anything with me without him trying to bully or engaging in other childish activities.

Lol, your powers of observation need work...first, you missed one of my posts that I referred to later when I said "this unblocking will be shortlived"...second, Idilis is already back under another name created quite some time ago, and you have yet to notice.

I thought that was a fiendly comment from you. I have nothing against you at the moment. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

"Elroch has claimed many times, it seems, that science has nothing to do with analysing chess"

i think you misinterpret what he's saying. hes moreso saying that the scientific method cannot be a suitable mathematical proof.

No comment regarding the other thing. I'm less interested in idyllis than I was so it's of no matter to me but we can stick to our own opinions.

@MEGCHE3SE is right and to the point, as usual.

I'm not the one with his knickers in a twist.

Nah. Do you see what you're saying?
You're saying that Elroch refers to a mathematical proof as "suitable". He's a mathematician of sorts so it would suit him, sure.

Sadly for him, a mathematical proof is impossible. Double sadly, he needs one. He identifies too strongly with his status as a mathematician to relinquish the idea and several times he has told me that I'm wrong for claiming that chess is only susceptible to a scientific approach.

Because then he wouldn't be able to make fun of ty.

The important thing to note is that he has told me about four times that chess analysis in the sense we're discussing has nothing to do with science and a scientific approach.

He's also attempted to call me ignorant for expressing that opinion. It's a correct opinion.

Anyway thanks and I appreciate your involvement and comment. My post was mainly directed at you.

Ah so you're admitting you wear them!

No, Sherlock, I preemptively sidestepped your attempt before you even read my post, thus deciding not to use "my" at all. You're very predictable, and not too observant.

I don't think so, since I never made a retort like that to you before. But obviously something has caused your panic. I can't think what.

...your memory is also a bit suspect. There's no panic, it's more like I am playing ping pong with a 3 yr old on a footstool. Fun for you, even if you don't get what's going on, but a bit tedious for me.

Note that if I never mentioned anything, later you'd have sworn on a stack of bibles that I said "my knickers" in spite of your having quoted me...you have done this "I only read what I was hoping to read" thing a number of times in the past.

Of course. I think it would be quite important to you to push that angle, since you're wrong on everything you've claimed.

I have suspected it some time ago when we weren't getting along but now we're getting along REALLY well so I don't think he does.

Thats up for dio to answer

He still has this tendency to invent things a bit and fantasise but I really like him and he wears a rare line in knickers. He said so. He even assumed that I wear them. That's what friendship does.

Quite the heated arguement ensuing in this thread

Zowarrrdooo

I do not post on alts. There's no need to when you are confident about what you post.