Chess will never be solved, here's why

You might do better to follow your own advice.

I referred to somebody's behaviour rather than using the pejoratives and namecalling that a particular person has been using intensely.
Somebody suggested 'lets see how long' before he 'reverts'.
So far - not yet.
But that does not give a license to try to bully others into submission.
Just as with intellectual snobbery - delusional authority 'doesn't work'.
As for 'ill feeling' - again there's the idea of that person following his own advice instead of mischaracterizing others.
@btickler did a good job of informing as to the 'history' of this -
and if that helps with a certain person (not I doing so) refraining from his namecalling and other personal attacks - then a good purpose has been served.  

'Somebody' has avoided his namecalling behaviour for three days or so.
If he can also refrain from 'trying to supervise'  (dressed up with a phony 'please') - then that would be another step in a good direction.

Now:  to get back to the relevance of science - and the relevance of 'psychology of perception' - to the thread topic ...
I'm going to delete and repost the two posts I made a few minutes ago.
As they were diverted from by 'somebody'.

Well broadening the relevance brought in at least one new poster !

From @Elroch just now:
"I don't know what you think you mean by "a violation of red-shift". Red shift is an observational phenomenon resulting from general relativity. Violating it would seem to mean proving GR wrong."
Again - he sputters.  It went right over his head.  Again.
When he conceded these points a long time ago - well he's forgotten.

The point is that if celestial objects such as galaxy clusters were not following the patterns of Red Shift that we observe in 'the Big Bang' - that could be termed a 'violation' of the Red Shift that astronomers have been observing.
Substituting 'GR' (general relativty) violations for hypothetical violations of local-observable Red Shift patterns - isn't an argument.
Its a tactic called a 'strawman'.  Substitute something invalid (in this case irrelevant semantics) and then attacking his own idea to do so.

Isn't it kind of obvious that whatever's far enough out there that isn't part of the Big Bang wouldn't follow the relatively local Red Shift patterns that are observed?
But what is observable from earth basically supports just One Big Bang -
not multiple Big Bangs elsewhere and elsewhen.

But such 'violations' (other Big Bangs) would not be observable from earth in any case.
There's something called Olber's paradox ...
Consider an invalid suggestion that if there is an infinite number of stars - we'd see them here and there'd be no night sky ....
We wouldn't.  But to realize why - one would have to think about it a little.

There are people who try to insist that 'we see everything' from earth.
But that's already invalid and constantly disproven.  New stars discovered all the time.

Relevance:   Anybody arguing that chess would be solved in five years because somebody on a different website or with a chess title says so.  It doesn't follow.

And trying to argue that the two lightbeams don't diverge at 2c -
using the words 'Galillean' and 'Relativity' - doesn't disprove the reality that oppositely aimed lightbeams would do exactly that.
Again - as in years ago - @Elroch started sputtering about 'frames'.

Its so simple.  Start with one lightbeam.  It travels at c.
Now does adding another lightbeam in the opposite direction mean that the first lightbeam now slows down to half of c?
The two lightbeams communicate and 'make a deal' ?
No.  
They diverge at 2c.  For those who are worried about 'credentialism' you can look it up on the web.

Relevance:   Again - subscribing to 'solved in five years' because somebody with credentials says so.
Without doing one's own thinking.
Kneeling to so-called 'facts' while not attending to logic.  

Regarding 'Big Bangers' - one sees extreme positions taken:
Like:
'At the time of the Big Bang - T=0.  Arguing that time didn't exist before it.'
And paired with that:
"Everything in the Universe existed as compressed into a single point with no spatial dimensions.  In the form of energy not matter.  It exploded."

The 'inside of a point' ....    
Why would such a notion be pursued ?
Maybe as a workaround for 'Entropy'.
The argument apparently being that if the universe was infinitely old - it would have 'run down into thermodynamic 'Equilibrium' ...
a kind of 'dead heat soup'.   
But that notion can be disproved by using the Big Bangers' own arguments against them.
If you could have one Big Bang - why not multiple Big Bangs elsewhere and elsewhen ?  Why 'there can be only One' like in the ridiculous movie Highlander ?  Maybe because of the psychology of wanting a 'winner' ?
Why would there be just one 'Cosmic Egg' waiting to explode ?
Probably counter-argument:  "  "multiple Eggs" would argue for the existence of space and time and 'Entropy'."
But many of the Big Banger enthusiasts want an 'envelope' that the universe can expand into.  How about each egg has its own 'envelope'?
A unique Big Bang happening in Hugh Hefner's mansion - would be at about the same level?  All the 'eggs' in one basket?
I would say the Big Bang has been made into a kind of religion ...

Regarding credentialism - do people with doctorates and other high level degrees get 'bragging rights'?
Sure they do.  Such bragging is even part of getting paid.
Like doctors and lawyers getting paid and paid well.
And in some cases there's intellectual dishonesty - and intellectual honesty.
Do the credentials and the honesty/dishonesty lead directly to 
'intellectual snobbery' ?
Not necessarily.   But they could Help with that !  

Is intellectual snobbery forgiveable? Often or usually.  Both.
Are such persons foregivable?  Often or usually.  Both.
Especially with harmless subjects like whether chess could be solved or not and how long.  Or in harmless cosmology discussions.
What we're seeing here - to some extent - are members referring to somebody else's intellectual snobbery or crass lack of objectivity (on another website) and using that as an argument.
The psychology of perception.   A biggie in this forum.
With relevance to both cognitive and behavioural psychology.

Computers moving ahead of all humanity in chess playing strength - and also being able to 'solve' some five-piece problems that humanity couldn't solve -
hasn't hurt chess.
Its helped chess !   A lot !  
Including with developing this website.

Here is an extension to your way of thinking. Consider three photons moving away from a point at angles of 0, 120, and 240. Let's define a distance as the sum of the three distances to the photons. Then in the rest frame at the centre this distance is increasing at a speed of 3c.

This distance is a well-defined quantity but it is not a true speed, even though it is the sum of 3 speeds.

This is not a useful thing to do.

Actually there is a better way to explain (similar to what I did before).  Velocities are the fundamental observations (because space is 3-dimensional).  A speed is the magnitude of a velocity (the square root of the sum of the squares of its components).

What you have done is add the magnitude of two different velocities, each of which is c.  The reason this is not a great idea is that if you add the velocities (so as to determine the relative velocity of one point versus the other) using the correct relativistic velocity addition formula, you get a different answer - it comes to a velocity with magnitude c,  not 2c.

@Elroch
You can keep trying to tell me and everybody else that they don't diverge at 2c -
and you will continue to be mistaken.
No amount of 'frames' and 'relativity' is going to change that.
I'm now tempted to post links from 'authorities' supporting the reality of 2c.
But then we might get one of those crazy 'my links versus your links' situations.
And then somebody might claim its irrelevant.
But its not irrelevant to 'postulations and insistencies' being used in this forum.

Its extremely simple.
What's going to happen when you measure the distance between the fronts of the lightbeams after a certain time?
What's going to happen when you divide that distance by that time ?
That's right.  2c.
Trying to say that distance 'has no meaning' is a kind of nasal sputtering.
It makes a kind of choking sound.
The distance is real.  The speed is real.  2c.

This is relevant for this reason:
Interference with the intellectual snobbery going on in the forum.
Getting a more objective view of the arguments instead of a credentials-based 'authoritarianism'.  

Elroch did concede this - several years ago.  But he's forgotten that he did.

One of the things that might 'confuse' people ...
is what happens when a light shines from the back of a train -
no matter how fast the train moves -
the light will still travel at c !
But - its frequency and wavelength are definitely effected !
At a stationary observer's end.  Behind the train.
Not quite a 'Doppler' effect - but closely related.
Ever hear the pitch of a car horn change as one car rapidly passes another ?
Frequency and wavelength very much modified by the changing situation - but the sound still moves at the same speed through the air.  

To understand further - as a sound radiates outwards from its source -
and you consider 'sound fronts' positioned at opposite sides - 
those sound fronts are going to move away from each other at Twice the speed of sound.
Does the sound still only travel at its usual less than 800 mph?
Yes.  But the divergence is at twice that.  
Science and mathematics are not in black boxes reserved to nasal terminology. 

Lorentz transformations are well approximated by Galilean transformations when the velocities are small compared to c.

Two reference frames, S and S': let's say S is the station and S' is the train, moving at constant velocity v from S. You are O, motionless in S and O' is the back of the train. I am moving at constant velocity u' with respect to O', toward the head of the train . You see me moving at speed u=(v+u')/(1+v*u'/c^2). That is the correct Lorentz transformation of velocities. But if v*u'<<c^2, you get u=v+u', the classical Galilean transformation.

Yes, I feel that is a valid scientific prediction for the future of this thread!

The two lightbeams could be replaced by a single light source.
Like a streetlamp.
When its turned on - its diameter increases at 2c.  Not c.
One can sputter endlessly about 'frames' and 'riding the lightbeams' and 'Gallilean' - but that has as much proof as saying 
"it rained in Australia last week - can prove it - so therefore there Is a greatest prime number !"  (there isn't though.  That's the reality - there's a neat proof of it too.)
The diameter of the expanding illuminated zone is real - it has 'real meaning' - it is both mathematically and physically real and it expands at 2c (yes you can deduct for air resistance) ...
the same for diameters of sound fronts.  Multiply by 2.

Point:  Psychology of perception:
If somebody wants to argue that the Tabiya positions are legitimate for solving of chess because somebody else says so - or quote Sveshnikov (a famous titled player) - then that's what they'll do - and then we'll get a battle of behaviours rather than a battle of logic.
And - when such behaviours are discussed - what you get is not a rational discussion of the behaviours ...  you get the behaviours themselves.
All relevant to the forum topic.  
Perceptions of the mathematics and semantics and yes the science (computer science) of computers too - but more the perceptions than the actual logic.

Suggestion:  "the planets orbit the sun according to Kepler's laws."
Counter:  No.  They don't.  The orbits actually 'wobble' and each planet's orbital motion is affected by other planets' gravities.  Like the gravity of Jupiter for example.  And by other factors.
The planets couldn't care less about Kepler.  
Kepler's laws are an attempt to describe what happens.  They cannot define nor 'ordain' what happens.

Elroch conceded both points a long time ago.  Years and years ago.
He knows that the diameter of the illuminated zone increases at 2c.
He knows it.
That isn't personalization.  It speaks to his posts.  He would know that.

The one he wouldn't concede concerned the slowing down of time aboard a spaceship leaving earth travelling at high speed.
The earth orbits the sun at 66,000 miles an hour.
If the spaceship is heading in the opposite direction - it could actually be slowing down.
It could use the gravity of nearby planets to rendezvous and land on earth as that planet goes around again.
He refused to concede that there could be scenarios where more time actually elapsed on the spaceship than on earth.

Its not personal.  It simply discusses what can happen in subjects like the forum topic.
How do we navigate around this kind of thing?
Sometimes - the navigation is right through the middle of it.  

Black holes - within other 'Big Bangs' is one of the reasons we wouldn't be able to see other 'Big Bangs' elsewhere.
The light from their stars would be subject to their own black holes - including collectively.  A gigantic 'gravity well of curved space'.
Could their light 'escape' that  to travel the enormous gulf of space between one big bang and another?
What about the hydrogen in space blocking its way too?
What about dilution by distance?  Light can only divide so many times.
How about we wouldn't see it?
How could anybody prove we would ?
Remarkable:  Stephen Hawking was apparently more objective about the science he propounded than many of his followers were and are.  

And chess won't be solved for billions of years unless they come up with some much better programming.  Radically better.

Its possible.
Wasn't it computers that 'solved' checkers?
If that's true - then perhaps back in the fifties they might have believed checkers couldn't be solved anytime soon?

Would you guys believe that an official back around the year 1900 was claiming that everything that could be invented had already been invented?
Director of US Patents?  I can't remember - maybe somebody'll google it.
Guess who was working in a Swiss patent office ... maybe around that time.
Einstein?
Did Albert make Swiss cheese out of the notion that everything had been invented already ? 

a

It's all in the detail. My motivation is to share the somewhat subtle point that there is a difference between a genuine speed (which is always limited by the speed of light) and a quantity which has the units of speed (which does not behave as well).

I would observe that it is not uncommon in popular accounts of physics to be misleading in this way, typically in descriptions of the expansion of the Universe. Nothing ever moves faster than the speed of light relative to something else. No amount of argument about space itself expanding changes this. The reason for the erroneous inference is always adding speeds associated with velocities in incompatible frames.