Chess will never be solved, here's why

Whenever I point out something you say is wrong, you either throw a tantrum or deflect. Unlike Bigchessplayer, I know very well that you are not honest. I also know that you aren't bright, since otherwise you would realise the value of honesty.

And Elroch, you are our resident narcissist. Your vanity is not backed up by any ability worth speaking of and the only people on the entire site who agree with you are your trained monkeys. You are completely out of your depth and that shows clearly because you haven't given any proper arguments. That's because if you tried, I would dismantle them. So you just got your parrots to make squawking noises. You're nothing more than a troll.

The reason I'm telling you this is the personal attacks you were making on ty, which were completely out of order, encourage others to do the same. There is no doubt at all that you're a troll and that is widespread knowledge. I even think it's now too late for you to change.

Limitations of Computing Power

While modern computers have made significant strides in chess analysis and gameplay through powerful engines like Stockfish and AlphaZero, there are inherent limitations to computational power when it comes to solving chess. Despite the advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, the resources required to comprehensively solve chess—accounting for all possible variations and strategies—are currently beyond reach. The exponential growth in complexity as the game progresses further complicates the task of achieving a complete solution.

The Role of Human Error

Another crucial aspect that prevents the complete solution of chess is the presence of human error. In competitive play, even the strongest grandmasters can make mistakes due to factors like time pressure, psychological stress, fatigue, or oversight. These errors introduce uncertainty into the game and create opportunities for unexpected outcomes that may deviate from optimal play as determined by theoretical analysis or computer calculations.

Emergence of New Strategies

Chess is a dynamic game that continues to evolve over time as players develop new strategies, openings, tactics, and approaches to gameplay. The introduction of novel ideas and innovations keeps the game fresh and engaging while posing challenges for traditional methods of analysis or solving. As players experiment with unconventional moves or unconventional setups, the landscape of chess strategy expands further, adding layers of complexity that resist easy categorization or resolution.

Conclusion: Chess as an Ever-Evolving Challenge

In conclusion, the multifaceted nature of chess—with its infinite possibilities, human creativity, strategic depth, computing limitations, human error factors, and evolving strategies—makes it highly improbable that chess will ever be definitively solved. While advancements in technology may continue to push the boundaries of what is achievable in terms of analysis and gameplay optimization, the essence of chess lies in its enduring capacity to challenge players intellectually and creatively without succumbing to complete resolution.

It took me a full half our to write this, so please read it.

I'm practising for my IT class btw haha

Hahahahhah. Hi Martin!

It wasn't too bad although it did sound like AI. That is, lots or nice-sounding words without much content but as an overview it was alright. I won't say "quite good" just yet, because there should have been an element of food for thought to encourage such a response. But not bad.

However, one thing I noticed was that you used the word "infinite" as a descriptor for chess. I've also used that argument here and by and large, the native population of this thread (or should I say the latest wave of invaders?) don't like that at all. You see, it would cause them to have to think, if they took it seriously. So, perhaps there was food for thought and therefore my assessment becomes "quite good".

Well done.

Well, I know you're trying to convince us of that .....

Elroch speaks for himself ...
but I'll add something here. 
Elroch is the opening poster of these two nine year popular forums on this website. Since 2015 in other words.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/the-science-of-evolution-no-politics-or-religion With over 50,000 posts.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/global-warming---its-real-dummies With over 25,000 posts.
//////////////////////////////////////////////
The O-person was foolish enough to post his chess game in the evolution forum and got a warning from Elroch. Very recently.
Then there was somebody named HarbingerofDoom breaking the rules by insisting on preaching religion in that same evolution forum. Again - this year.
Who thus got rightly and efficiently blocked by Elroch. Ejected.
A person supposedly a doctor then foolishly protested that block.
The name of that 'doctor' is @HaplessFool. I kid you not.
HF then quit the forum.
/////////////////////////////////////
The O-person then went foolishly extra-Nuts. Not a new thing.
And got himself blocked too. In both forums. Not the first time.
'O' has been muted by chess.com staff too. On multiple occasions.
'O' now foolishly blames Elroch for what O foolishly self-inflicted on himself.
He does that constantly. Masochistically. In various ways. Year in year out.
///////////////////////////////////////
Dio also blocked 'O'. Years ago. In the Covid forum.
Now O is 'sucking up' to Dio. For now.

I don't believe optimal play is determined by theoretical analysis or computer calculations, except in certain types of position with a very limited number of men on the board - notably a majority of positions with up to 7 men under FIDE basic rules or a majority of such positions with no previous positions considered repeated per art. 9.2.2 under FIDE competition rules (guaranteed if the ply count <4 in that case, but not otherwise).

Engine analysis can be ignored; I have posted numerous examples of SF without tablebase aid failing miserably with only 5 men on the board and it sometimes appears to be stuffed finding mates in 7 according to this blog. Human theoretical analysis is woefully inadequate except in a subset of the positions mentioned in the last paragraph and even then a large percentage of theory with only 5 men or less was overturned by the tablebases.

Edit: Looking at the link again, it appears the latest versions of SF may not be stuffed until mates reach a depth of 10, but given that we know of forced mates a little short of 600 moves and this is likely to double with completion of the 8 man DTM tablebases it doesn't affect the argument much.

Have you considered running for US president, Optimissed? I believe they're having an election later this year and your style of argument seems to appeal to a lot of people over there.

Am I? I hadn't noticed. Still, it's amazing what goes on in playerafar's mind. Entire books have been written on the subject of paranoic delusion.

@QuantumTopologistISBACK

Don't see being from the UK should be a disadvantage if he could raise enough money to keep a few judges happy. Russian agents are popular. Touch on the young side but plenty of dementia to compensate.

And yes, we probably are.

The funny thing is that when you get three or four people who are all subject to delusion, they are apt to have a really good try at pretending the whole world is wrong and they're right. If they do manage to cut off their victims from reality, who knows what they can make them believe.

They always try to select highly suggestible people to try to manipulate, and they try to isolate them from reality.

My fan base is certainly growing because I'm the only one who is really standing up to the narcissists. But even so, I'm not eligible and I wouldn't really want the job.

Yeah but I know I really do have an IQ of 169 or thereabouts. Statistically, if that were so it would put me in the brightest 100 people on this site. Even without using that as a prop, it's difficult to convey the general sense of nausea which comes from attempting to communicate with egocentric dullards like some of the inhabitants of this thread. I recently had a couple of interesting conversations with Dio so he's proven to me he can do it if he wants. Elroch never has and I've known him online since about 2010 or so. I once managed to have a conversation with player, which demonstrated that player is definitely acting dumb and is probably an alt. It wasn't an interesting conversation but it was rational and a bit like a conversation with Elroch.

No I won't. Statistically, out of 9 million or whatever, there are going to be cleverer people. It's just what you happen to do on the day you take a test. When I asked about my results they wouldn't say, except "second highest in the county since records began" and "definitely over 140". That would have been because this was in 1960 and the confidence factor diminishes a lot over 140. The army tested my dad at 171 in 1943. They shouldn't have told him but he was mates with the testing sergeant. It can happen and to give my dad credit, he did train my mind a bit, just like I did in my turn with my son. Anyway, I did some Eysenck tests around 1977. I always knew I was a long way over 140.

Bigchessplayr, my mission here, if there is one, isn't to impress you with how I act. That's because, altough I like you, I know you have some non-viable ideas and also you're very fond of conformity. I think you're very ok though.

"The uneducated" in the words of a much more famous malignant narcissist 'complimenting' his base.

@Optimissed, what would you say is your second greatest intellectual achievement in life?

(After a purported outlier IQ test taken half a lifetime ago when your brain was young, a claim which I treat with a pinch of salt based on knowledge of how narcissists elaborate).

tf you mean Elroch is a narcissist, he doesnt display any of the behaviors. if anything I'M closer to being a narcissist.

either way, ill take this conversation over tygxc spreading misinformation any day.

I'm a bit puzzled why you suggest @playerafar is narcissistic - as far as I can see, he completely fails to exhibit the checklist of characteristics in the way certain people (no names mentioned) do. See https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/how-to/how-to-spot-a-narcissist-5-things-to-look-for/ for such a list taken from a respected medical source.