Chess will never be solved, here's why

chess has been solved by my toaster bro yall don't understand

I didn't see anything he was replying to either...careful, this is usually when he accuses people of deleting posts rather than let his infirmities sit there on open display.

A tip to save you some effort @Optimissed. Simply copy the sentence, "I haven't the faintest idea what any of this is about", then, whenever you feel inclined to post, just paste it into the text area. It will convey exactly the same message without all that typing.

If you want to add some insults just type them after.

Well now you know...

You have yet to be correct about a single post deletion.

some people think he's onto something at first, but they ALWAYS turn against him in time.

FYI optimissed you should realize that the zermelo stuff applies independently of game complexity.

you should also realize that your definition of a 'mathematical representation' is improper, and that's causing your misunderstanding.

you are interpreting 'mathematical representation' as a human-written algorithm to guarantee and verify a solution of the game.

but a game as a mathematical object/representation is just the ruleset of the game expressed in logical language. human abilities and technology have no bearing here.

Basic chess positions, as for pretty much all the numbers bandied around. I don't think a single number has been posted even incorporating moves to zero (just multiply the basic numbers by 50 or similar).

And I'll repeat again, basic chess positions are entirely adequate for a weak solution of chess (dealing with a 50 move rule in generating a proof tree is simple). And it is such a weak solution that is the focus of the majority of this discussion - it is the meaning of "solved" that is being addressed.

Your point that strong solution of FIDE rules chess is much more impractical is correct, but not so interesting. There is no strong solution of (basic rules) checkers yet!

It is amusing that @Optimissed is unaware that mathematical theorems (such as the general form of Zermelo's theorem) apply to a class of objects with given properties and that the size of an example is irrelevant to the truth (unless it is explicitly part of the conditions of the theorem).

Yes. O had that crazy 'mapping' idea and apparently invoked 'semantics' on Dio's use of the word crumpet. It was very lightweight and 'pseudo' by O. But that's not new.
Led to him taking days off.

I maintain that tygxc is a Giant in the positive sense of the word - compared with the O-person.
And the way tygxc goes at things its like he Wants us to oppose him.

I highly doubt you know how to do differential equations lol, nor are they relevant here. either way, that was a couple years ago for me.

that "gobbledygook" was 7th grade maths btw.

it's quite hilarious how optimissed like "zermelo's theorem doesnt apply to chess" when the example that zermelo used that his theorem proves was chess.

"What I do know is that you are quoting things without understanding what they mean. Yes you can define a game by its rules but that isn't what's meant by representing it mathematically."

Except for thats literally what it is LMFAO.

it's the definition of the mathematical object

"The games studied in game theory are well-defined mathematical objects. To be fully defined, a game must specify the following elements: the players of the game, the information and actions available to each player at each decision point, and the payoffs for each outcome. (Eric Rasmusen refers to these four "essential elements" by the acronym "PAPI".)"

basic wiki search.

btw im only using ethos here because i know you dont listen to logic.

LMFAO spoken like someone who didnt read the proof. God i wish i reached category theory already.

@Optimissed, he is right and is surely far more capable of doing mathematics than you, as well as understanding it.

Mathematics is the study of abstract truth. While it concentrates very much on results that are as general and applicable (for revealing more truth) it includes petty things like an arithmetic problem or a chess problem. This is because these can be represented abstractly and the truth of the answer proved using deductive logic.

Finding a weak solution of chess is a big chess problem (hence, in a general sense, a mathematical problem - see above). To be pedantic the problem includes both the detemination of the optimal value of the game (proven to exist by Zermelo's Theorem) and then the exhibition of a complete way for each side to achieve that result. Just like a checkmate problem where you have to say how to respond to every legal move by black all the way to mate. (It's highly likely that the solution of chess is actually two drawing strategies rather than one mating one, but all that changes is the objective).

It is interesting how you are blind even to the possibility that you might be wrong in your spectacularly arrogant proclamations about a short proof that you don't understand - Zermelo's theorem - and how that makes you appear to those who do understand. This is the consequence of passionately held absurd beliefs - to you, it is impossible that you are wrong and everyone else is right, isn't it?

Nah I didn't even protect elroch at all I made one comment max lmao and who's insulting who in this post .... I'm very perplexed by this comment

@Optimissed sometimes fantasises that either all the people who disagree with him are alts of some single Nemesis, or that there are secret cabal meetings to co-ordinate the imagined war against him.

Maybe I should create alts to disagree with him make his fantasy a reality

Besides I hardly find anyone interfering anyone in this thread other than maybe mega,or dio so I dunno why he's pointing me out lol

When someone repeatedly chooses to walk face first into buzz saws, you can't accuse the buzz saws of being bullies. Just stop making a fool of yourself by adamantly claiming things you have no knowledge about and your troubles would miraculously cease...