Contrast with the Jamaican woman who yesterday drove me on a business trip. My wife was along for the ride and I was explaining to my wife's friend why I'm an atheist. Both of them are Christians, my wife's friend much more strongly than she is. They were talking about some events in the jamaican't past, regarding encountering people who claimed to be pracising witches. From Haiti. I was explaining what I think G-d is and why I think religious belief exists and is rational, from an atheist's stand-point. I already respected the Jamaican but her open-ness, loving nature and generosity of spirit really impressed me. It contrasts to starkly with the attitudes of mind of so many people, who never attempt to understand the motivations and reasons of others and so will never come to understand themselves.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
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.
Exactly.
My comment was addressed to Marattigan's post but I forgot to quote it.
Sorry, didn't realise. Thought you were interlocuting me. 
@stancco
As for me, since you ask; I couldn't care less. I just take it as an illustration of "small things amuse small minds".
@stancco
As for me, since you ask; I couldn't care less. I just take it as an illustration of "small things amuse small minds".
Small potatoes say so
"It's too bad there isn't a fifty-move rule for Internet arguments."
Repetitio mater studiorum.
Repetition is the mother of study.
Many here still do not understand that it is not necessary to strongly solve a game to weakly solve it and that it is not necessary to weakly solve a game to ultra-weakly solve it.
I think it is you that doesn't understand. Strongly solving a game means being able to show perfect play from any possible configuration of pieces, not just from the starting position.
Weakly solved means showing perfect play from the starting position all the way to the end. Not "probably really close to perfect play but not quite"...perfect play.
Ultra-weakly solved is reserved for those games where a mirror strategy or some simplified logic can prove a forced win or draw without calculating out the move tree, ala Tic Tac Toe.
You just fail to realize that these 3 definitions implement very differently for different games, and that for chess, weakly solved and strongly solved are both >10^40 endeavors and effectively out of reach. For some games, ultra weakly solved would be impossible and/or strong and weakly solved could be the same solution.
Do they? How interesting.
I'm so amused knowing you're interested
In my opinion, tygxc is correct and it's about time one or two people came to understand what I was arguing years ago.
tygxc isn't talking about strongly solving, which, in his lingo, refers to an immense web of dependent and co-dependent moves, which are reputed to be able to show strongest play or merely good play (play which doesn't lose) from any point. Constructing a complete tablebase from the initial position is hopeless and impossible.
Ultra-weakly is essentially heuristic, which includes taking games from samples which some will consider insufficient and others will disagree with them. The entire nomenclature or definition-base is unfit for purpose because it lads straight into these continual misunderstandings between people.
The reason so called "weakly" solving requires a strong solution is that although weakly solving is supposedly solving chess for from the pov of one side alone, in that only a sort of repertoire for any move by the opponent is required, it was completely forgotten that that repertoire move against any position has to be calculated by the same method used to calculate a strong solution and thus a strong solution is required.
I did point all this out years ago but no-one understood me except a few people passing through, leading me to form my present opinion of the motivation (and perhaps abilities) of some here. I believe it's necessary to entirely drop the terms "strongly" and "weakly" solving, not necessarily for the purposes of this conversation, which is for us to learn from, but definitely in any new undertaking to "solve chess". The entire idea of managing to construct a table-base for the entirety of chess is so flawed as to be rather ridiculous. Any solution has to be heuristically based, which means a complete and novel breakthrough in algorithmic depiction of various phases of chess games.
Your slip's showing.
haha
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.
Lol. "Known to many" meaning, of course, that you made it up and sent it in PMs to other crackpots in some obsequious fashion...
In my opinion, tygxc is correct and it's about time one or two people came to understand what I was arguing years ago.
tygxc isn't talking about strongly solving, which, in his lingo, refers to an immense web of dependent and co-dependent moves, which are reputed to be able to show strongest play or merely good play (play which doesn't lose) from any point. Constructing a complete tablebase from the initial position is hopeless and impossible.
Ultra-weakly is essentially heuristic, which includes taking games from samples which some will consider insufficient and others will disagree with them. The entire nomenclature or definition-base is unfit for purpose because it lads straight into these continual misunderstandings between people.
The reason so called "weakly" solving requires a strong solution is that although weakly solving is supposedly solving chess for from the pov of one side alone, in that only a sort of repertoire for any move by the opponent is required, it was completely forgotten that that repertoire move against any position has to be calculated by the same method used to calculate a strong solution and thus a strong solution is required.
I did point all this out years ago but no-one understood me except a few people passing through, leading me to form my present opinion of the motivation (and perhaps abilities) of some here. I believe it's necessary to entirely drop the terms "strongly" and "weakly" solving, not necessarily for the purposes of this conversation, which is for us to learn from, but definitely in any new undertaking to "solve chess". The entire idea of managing to construct a table-base for the entirety of chess is so flawed as to be rather ridiculous. Any solution has to be heuristically based, which means a complete and novel breakthrough in algorithmic depiction of various phases of chess games.
Luckily, your floundering in these discussions across multiple threads are still available for anyone to read, so your revisionist history is available on demand...
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.
Lol. "Known to many" meaning, of course, that you made it up and sent it in PMs to other crackpots in some obsequious fashion...
Why are you trying to create a false impression (read "lie") that I communicate to people via pm all the time? It obviously bothers you but I don't do so much and it's usually about chess or something interesting. Not about you, although I understand that you'll find it hard to believe. I talked a bit to Ghostess and hapless when Elroch blocked me, about three months ago, mainly because I'd been trying to get along with him, hadn't done anything wrong at all and so it was proven beyond all possibility of any doubt that Elroch was at fault and that he's completely dishonest and manipulative.
In my opinion, tygxc is correct and it's about time one or two people came to understand what I was arguing years ago.
tygxc isn't talking about strongly solving, which, in his lingo, refers to an immense web of dependent and co-dependent moves, which are reputed to be able to show strongest play or merely good play (play which doesn't lose) from any point. Constructing a complete tablebase from the initial position is hopeless and impossible.
Ultra-weakly is essentially heuristic, which includes taking games from samples which some will consider insufficient and others will disagree with them. The entire nomenclature or definition-base is unfit for purpose because it lads straight into these continual misunderstandings between people.
The reason so called "weakly" solving requires a strong solution is that although weakly solving is supposedly solving chess for from the pov of one side alone, in that only a sort of repertoire for any move by the opponent is required, it was completely forgotten that that repertoire move against any position has to be calculated by the same method used to calculate a strong solution and thus a strong solution is required.
I did point all this out years ago but no-one understood me except a few people passing through, leading me to form my present opinion of the motivation (and perhaps abilities) of some here. I believe it's necessary to entirely drop the terms "strongly" and "weakly" solving, not necessarily for the purposes of this conversation, which is for us to learn from, but definitely in any new undertaking to "solve chess". The entire idea of managing to construct a table-base for the entirety of chess is so flawed as to be rather ridiculous. Any solution has to be heuristically based, which means a complete and novel breakthrough in algorithmic depiction of various phases of chess games.
Luckily, your floundering in these discussions across multiple threads are still available for anyone to read, so your revisionist history is available on demand...
So go ahead and quote me, not forgetting to alter it a little. Should be fun. Or make some quotations out of context, which is basically all you're capable of doing.
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.
Lol. "Known to many" meaning, of course, that you made it up and sent it in PMs to other crackpots in some obsequious fashion...
Why are you trying to create a false impression (read "lie") that I communicate to people via pm all the time? It obviously bothers you but I don't do so much and it's usually about chess or something interesting. Not about you, although I understand that you'll find it hard to believe. I talked a bit to Ghostess and hapless when Elroch blocked me, about three months ago, mainly because I'd been trying to get along with him,
no (and you seriously expect anyone to believe that?)
hadn't done anything wrong at all
no
and so it was proven beyond all possibility of any doubt that Elroch was at fault and that he's completely dishonest and manipulative.
no
Also that contradicts your most recent previous lie here.
In my opinion, tygxc is correct [snip]
That's strange, some guy called @Optimissed has been previously (correctly) pointing out he has been consistently incorrect, like several other people. Is agreement so unpleasant for you?
[snip]
Ultra-weakly is essentially heuristic
[snip]
Absolutely not. You seem to have a real problem understanding definitions of standard terms in mathematical subjects.
An ultra-weak solution is a rigorous (i.e. deductive) proof that one of the player wins. Just like all valid proofs in mathematics.
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.
Lol. "Known to many" meaning, of course, that you made it up and sent it in PMs to other crackpots in some obsequious fashion...
Why are you trying to create a false impression (read "lie") that I communicate to people via pm all the time? It obviously bothers you but I don't do so much and it's usually about chess or something interesting. Not about you, although I understand that you'll find it hard to believe. I talked a bit to Ghostess and hapless when Elroch blocked me, about three months ago, mainly because I'd been trying to get along with him,
no (and you seriously expect anyone to believe that?)
hadn't done anything wrong at all
no
and so it was proven beyond all possibility of any doubt that Elroch was at fault and that he's completely dishonest and manipulative.
no
Also that contradicts your most recent previous lie here.
Yes Elroch. You're deceitful, manipulative and disliked. Stop lying.
If you're so sensitive about people telling the truth, then you should stop your small gang of trolls from mentioning you. They are rather dazzled by your luminescence and are rather apt to invent things, always holding you as the hero and therefore inventing things. It's natural that falsehoods are rebutted by those they affect. If you didn't allow their hero-worship, they wouldn't be able to invent things and they wouldn't have to be denied by telling the truth about you. I'm sorry that you dislike the truth enough to pretend that those who tell it are lying about you but I'm afraid that's what will continue to happen if you continue to perpetuate your vendetta.
The bottom line is that you didn't have to get yourself into such a mess that you had to lie about it and the best thing for you would probably be to let it drop and to ask your admirers not to pretend that you are what you are not.
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.
Exactly.
My comment was addressed to Marattigan's post but I forgot to quote it.