Chess will never be solved, here's why

Yes well if you admit that you fake conformity, that isn't a basis for demanding that others should conform.

There's always been a bullying problem in these formums, which is well known. Some people react by never confronting them. Others by ignoring them or trying to be friendly or non-threatening to them. But where bullying is obviously used to close down freedom of speech, where that freedom is being used in a good sense to promote conversations where points of view are rejected by aggressive people, then if the moderators can't stop the bullying because it's under the radar of TOS, I think it's up to individuals whether they want to challenge it.

We've seen clearly how aggressive factions push their opinions regarding climate change and Covid, which are two obvious examples. It doesn't matter "who is in the right" because obviously, that is what is under discussion. Now we've even seen it regarding solving chess. People who want to close down opposition to bullying because it obviously disturbs them become part of the problem. The very people who are behind the bullying are often those who claim, very aggressively and volubly, that no bullying exists.

It's actually pretty funny. In my opinion, anyone who writes like that is definitely mentally ill. However, I do think it's an act, calculated to cut out objections to it for precisely that reason. That's why I think it's an alt of someone else. Maybe, maybe not.

What's striking is that when playerafar makes his usual lies about what I do, how I think, etc, he often appends "foolishly" to it. So it's like "Optimmised foolishly called me a nutter." Well that would be foolish because he's playing a part. He's acting a part which can be ridiculous and outrageous and won't be challenged so much, because people will feel sorry for him/her/it if they understand that the profile inhabitant seems mentally ill.

The question is whether someone who plays such a part must have something very wrong with them or whether they are likely to be normal. I noticed Elroch challenging you (I think) when player was called narcissistic. Clearly, Elroch doesn't know what narcissism is.

playerafar judges those he feels threatened by very negatively and promotes himself as intelligent, observant and so on, when any knowledgeable person, seeing the actions of that profile inhabitant, would immediately understand he has a severe personality disorder. The thing is, so does Elroch. They are, in fact, extremely like each other. Neither of them hesitate to use ad hominems. Both distort the truth and invent it if necessary. Both are extremely vain. It's obvious to those who can actually see the people who inhabit the profiles. You can't hide it from them unless you just try to fake being A.I.

Most importantly, both use prodigious amounts of personal abuse in their attempts to bully others into conformity with their own views.

Translation: I'm not like BC. Who is probably very young.
He doesn't understand that he is doing what he is talking about.
But that's okay. No big deal.
'O' hopes to 'isolate' Elroch. 

My post was short.
And everyone is different.
Didn't you know?
I've looked at my other alerts first.
Checked out the last post on this forum.
You want a long continuous exchange of 'you and me' posts?
Generally - I don't get drawn into that.
But you'll find people here to do that with.

I don't want to isolate Elroch. I'd prefer it if he stayed within his threads, since he rules them hypocritically. If he comes out and starts attacking people as he attacked tygxc, people have a right to defend themselves against him. Most people would prefer it if he stays in his threads, so Elroch has made the little plastic dummy we're now talking to.

My own attitude is that if he attacks tygxc here, it gets pointed out to him that he's behaving dishonestly. If he isn't challenged that that's how he accrues power. Dummies will come along and say "oooh, I never saw E behaving dishonestly or telling a lie" and so his bullying behaviour won't be challenged. Only ignorant, dishonest people stand up for him at the beginning. With enough of them, normal people will start to believe it.

In that case, go to the root of the problem and stop being dishonest.

@Optimissed, to be frank, you don't act like a nice person and exhibit a lack of empathy towards other participants. It would be fair to say you seem only to view them as potential threats to, or support for your ego. In the former case, you insult and attack them, believing this will defuse the threat. The latter case is quite rare. The sum total is very unconstructive, hence why you have been prevented from disrupting some threads.

Please provide support for your "1 million people died due to the lockdowns" claim...real support, I mean, not some crackpot blogger with a psychology or philosophy degree...

Pardon the hyperbole, but you couldn't dismantle a Lego house with a sledgehammer, much less dismantle logical arguments.

Best not to guess in public. I have not called him that. I try to say as little about people as possible and stick to detached facts (yes I have made one exception recently).

I have repeatedly pointed out the inaccuracies in what @tygxc has posted. I had thought that he took no notice and had become rather frustrated and said as much but, to his credit, he did accept a recent example (a discussion of the number of theoretical errors that could lead to 104 draws).

If I can summarise the corrections (which are factual in nature, and not at all personal), @tygxc has often indicating misunderstanding the generally understood (in the game theoretic literature) notion of solving a game. Solving a game is essentially a mathematically sound proof (including computer checking of cases), a deduction of truth with no unwarranted assumptions. As an example of the latter, assuming a position where one side is a queen up is won is an unwarranted assumption.
He has indicated partial misunderstanding of the nature of the peer-reviewed publication on the solution of checkers, perhaps the most complex game yet to be solved. Said solution is rigorous and deductive and involves no assumptions about the values of positions without proof. The proof consists essentially of a combination of a large tablebase of endgames and strategies that force at least a draw according to that tablebase (with candidate moves being suggested by an extremely strong engine, but the engine having no role in the final proof).

The sorts of inaccuracies in @tygxc's posts including suggesting that when analysing a strategy for one player you can ignore some opponent moves because they look bad without proving they are. Exactly like in a chess problem this is not good enough.

For example he has suggested recently that he has proven that 1. g4 loses for white, without dealing with huge numbers of possible white moves against his proposed strategy. This is a misunderstanding of what a proof is.

While this might seem impossible, I would like it if everyone in this discussion got to a solid understanding of the nature of the solution of a game and the reason that it is so hard to solve chess (a game which is much larger than checkers, which took more than 1000 years of CPU time - many thousands of years of core time).

That seems a trifle unrealistic. Are we trying to show off again?

I already discovered that your excellent rhetorical ability, which is admirable, isn't matched by your logical ability and you are generally the one who gives up attempting to argue logically when the going gets tough.

You are not noted for syllogistic excellence.

You must be very bad at it if you think Dio is good. Elroch is decent. I'm better. You are indeed less good. tygxc is not good at it.

There's no need to go through the arguments as to why tygxc is not good at formulating deductive arguments. Skipping to your last paragraph, I'm sure you would like it if everyone here accepts your criteria but that's unrealistic to expect.

Unfortunately tygxc didn't understand the apparent contradictions in the methodology proposed by Herik and Svesnikov. That led to slipshod thinking and he brought upon himself a measure of derision, due to repeating over and over his formulae without attempting to understand the objections.

But in turn, you should accept part of the blame, since you refused to question the misleading nomenclature and definitions he was using, when I suggested they should be improved upon. I accept that's probably because you're very conservative at heart but also, there's a strong element of over-control involved. If you insist too strongly on controlling everybody's approaches because you think you know the correct way to proceed, that isn't going to work at any level of debate unless you're teaching schoolkids.

Your assumption that assuming there's a win when one side is a queen up is unwarranted is itself unwarranted when you know from experience of the position type that the game is won. That's a good example of your insistence that only you know how to proceed. I'm not sure that you'll ever accept that the rigidity of many of your thought processes prevents you from understanding good arguments made by others and hence prevents you from actually being able to take part in a genuine discussion.

If by "gives up attempting to argue logically" you mean that I sometimes stop arguing with you after already winning the point, while you continue to flail about for a bit, then yes, I agree.

You're not a fit judge to talk about syllogism, whether the application is excellent or mediocre, so no point in addressing that.

No I didn't mean that. You have never ever been near the winning point of any argument you have caused between you and me, just as you are nowhere near winning this one.

I doubt if he is, but it's a given for the other one.

There's also incontravertible evidence that you have never won an argument with me, which is simply that playerafar believes you have always won every argument you've ever had with me. That's very strong evidence you've never won an argument. Anyone who knows playerafar well will agree.

I now await your response with laugh-buds atingling.

I thought you were completely senile but you can still post. Well done and how are you doing?

I don't generally cause arguments, but I have been known to end them. As for who usually wins, I leave that for reasonable posters to decide on their own.