Chess will never be solved, here's why

Perfectly true, but for the last, some people don't understand that a big red telephone doesn't count. (And some people also just don't understand what the first means.)

Then, of course, there's @Optimissed, who doesn't understand what any of it means.

Let's be frank, there is one repetitive blunderer who doesn't even understand the last sentence of the abstract of the second link:

"Solving a game takes this to the next level by replacing the heuristics with perfection."

I know that's what you want to believe and I also think you've given up hoping anyone else is going to believe it, except for the obvious suspects. Welcome back to the L.O.S.

I'm aware of its Italian meaning, but to your misfortune it has nothing to do to what is to be believed. However, I will not mind you to have it your way if you feel like so.

This sentence is or may be to the effect that next to be solved in order of difficulty will probably be Othello, which will require considerably more resources than draughts (checkers): the implication being that solving chess isn't on the horizon.

I noticed RATMAR making his usual commentary. He's fast becoming a member of the cabal, known to many as the "League of Losers". There are one or two semi-competent members so other members who are teetering on or over the edge of senile dementia are clearly required, to keep standards down or up, depending on whether you're standing on your head, which would be quite a mean feet, could it be acheived.

Regarding "Solving a game takes this to the next level by replacing the heuristics with perfection."

That's nonsense, of course.

Well, there are three kinds of mathematician; those that can count and those that can't.

(See above post.)

In my opinion, what is important in chess is not victory, but participation!!! When we are considered, this does not lead to the best. Man LEARN from his mistakes!!!!

Oh, I thought he was referring to tygxc when he mentioned that someone didn't understand it. I think ty does understand it and therefore E must have meant thee.

Hey! Im so bad at this game need someone to teach me, follow my Instagram: Auroravelvetx

I've been playing chess for 10 years now! I have 1 in a row. I don't get upset when I lose! This is just a game!

Wrong thread drling

yes only nerds here
and a few nerks

Incidentally I believe I was the first here to work out that it's necessary to strongly solve chess in order to weakly solve it (according to the sub-standard and even meaningless definitions used here) and that ultra-weakly solving consists of the scientific approach which tygxc is supporting, since it consists of the 5 days per move engine assisted GM games.

I definitely don't remember anyone consistently arguing for the first part. I'm definitely aware that I was so far ahead of the game that some people tried to pretend that I didn't understand it. It was around that time, RATMAR, that I believe I lost you entirely, since you were wasting time and space, interminably arguing about rule variations. It was definitely a trolling attempt by you, to confuse the issue, since you realised you were already totally confused and wanted to take the others with you.

I did point out that it's best to consider chess in the raw (or absolute) and then to attempt to see how adjunctive rules affect the basic understanding. That you and whomsoever you were arguing with (probably everybody but maybe mainly Elroch and ty) didn't accept that I was right meant that you (collectively) didn't understand me at that time. I think the dawning is slowly trickling through and some people are arguing for things I was arguing for 5 and more years ago.

It was discussing here, as much as anywhere and discussing this subject, as much as anything, which made me realise that none of you were all that bright and/or your egos got in the way of whatever thinking you might manage. It's one thing for roughly equals to interminably bash it out round and round in circles. However, the existence of people who can take the things you lot were struggling with in their stride and come up with an answer in a matter of minutes may have been (redact substitute "was") too much for the communal psyche of this and related threads. So to this day you continue to hide in the pretence that your efforts were meaningful, as I'm sure they were to you.

^^Wow, a minus one in about one minute. That means that my comment is a very good one.

#10375

You can never be sure whether @Optimissed is joking.

That'll be @tygxc. It's a hobby of his.

I know. He'll even minus a post which contains 9 positive comments about him, one neutral and one negative. Strange imo.

But it bothers you, is not it?

It worries me because it makes me realise that the motives of many people may not include prioritising reaching a truthful understanding but, more to the point, they are not trying so much to defend their ideas, beliefs and arguments so much as to defend themselves against what they perceive as an attack. That realisation did bother me at one time, yes. I think now I accept it more but it does mean I tend to write people off rather than to try to give them the benefit of any doubt. In some ways, that's a negative reaction of mine. However, it saves time or effort. This is a strange environment.