Chess will never be solved, here's why

His assessment of you, based on your past actions and words, is not just a bullseye. It's the center of the bullseye. 

I've spent much of the day going through a pile of records I bought for £10 a couple of days ago, Patriot. Interesting to hear all these things from 1982 to 1984, when I owned a record shop. There were actually some good records made in that period. There is also a lot of Buddy Holly EPs and Elvis singles from around 58. That's a good year because it's when Christine was born, so you see I'm married to a very attractive, younger woman! It was very amusing to find a Tyrolean yodelling recod among the others. My father had a small collection of them and I've rediscovered them, when his old records came to me. Some of them are interesting and very melodic, with zithers, harps and hammered dulcimers, among others.

.... he bellowed.

It's happened far more often than you've had the upper hand, because I have the better all-round ability. However, you reinforce your self-belief by surrounding yourself with others who  don't bite the hand that feeds them. Your inability to remember that within the past week, you replied to a post where I enumerated points of disagreement with the other poster, by saying that the other poster was correct in all points, is telling. It was obviously untrue but don't worry, all is not lost ... there will be those who will believe you. Thankyou for unblocking me but I'm not in a hurry to venture onto your territory quite yet, where you'll just fabricate yet another excuse for a confrontation. You can't help yourself and you're a troll on your own threads.

Right, that was the other thing.

I stated that the content of a post was correct. You stated that I had said a person was always correct. These are so far from being the same thing that it shouldn't need correcting.

Still waiting for that example...

You seem to be arguing over your own semantics. I did not tell you that you claimed the person was always right. I just left my post deliberately rather ambiguous and you jumped right in, because you made that assumption. However, since his post contained more or less all the points that he habitually bases his arguments upon, I may as well have told you that. Not much difference in practice and I was interested in seeing how far you would go, to back up your dishonest response.

In any case, to claim all the content of the post was correct is a little ridiculous, when you clearly indicate you have differences with him. You and I are closer in our assessments than you and he. I think you're just becoming more and more authoritarian and generally angry. You never admit to making a mistake, anyway. As you can see, I'm not the only person you annoy. I won't be making a point about giving you an example or not doing so, since you never know when you're beaten.

In all the points in the post he made, to which I answered and to which you then made a blanket statement that he was right in all points? A point is a point. A point is not a post. How ridiculous are you going to get, expecially when you made that blanket claim? It really is better that neither of us continue with this silly squabble but when you encourage trolling, as you do, you're apt to become even more like them than you are already. Better just wait til they return and hopefully, have a laugh about it.
EDIT <<playerafar wote:>>

Strange that really. I wouldn't have guessed you'd credit him but, I suppose, any port in a storm. So, he's simply "one of the others" and now you're even publicising the ad hominem. It really must be windy, where you are.

Here's a peach of muddled thinking I missed earlier, but found looking for the link for the above post!

So, how exactly do you determine a move by the opponent to be "non-viable" (as opposed to a deep brilliancy, say) WITHOUT ANALYSING IT?

And that's the point I was making. You actually think MY thinking is muddled but that's why the strong and weak solutions aren't distinguishable from one-another UNTIL they've been analysed, which makes it completely impossible to programme a computer to find a weak solution.

That's what I was arguing and that's what you and the others were telling me was wrong. But I knoew what I wrote was indeed correct. You're hopeless and some of the other hopeless cases are going to believe you, even so, because they can't work it out for thmselves. So you got there eventually. Pity it was in order to try to make another bad argument by dishonestly accusing me of muddled thinking, when the culprit has always been your good self, aided and abetted by all the other slowcoaches.

This is an example of why I finally gave up and told you that I am obviously more able than you and your friends, for which you told me I was a narcissist. If anyone's that, it ain't me. I know my limitations.

It isn't as though you're thick, because you're far from that. But your ego sometimes doesn't let you understand that you may be talking with someone who thinks faster and more accurately than you. So you argue that black's white and get all the little ones agreeing with you that black's white, and then all of a sudden, you clearly see that you can show that someone up, by making the same argument that id has been making for ages and which you didn't understand until now. If you were genuinely clever, Elroch, you wouldn't be held back by an ego which prevents you from recognising truth in the words of someone you dislike.

One last comment. You even misunderstood "No, you ignore your own non-played options. You ignore options for the other side only when they are definitely non-viable. Otherwise, what do you mean?"

"Definitely non-viable", there, means "objectively" non-viable. They have been defined as definitely non-viable, which is what my words indicated and which means that they may be defined as or categorised as non-viable, in an absolute and yet hypothetical sense. Someone with a good understanding of English would understand the impact that "definitely" has there. So we can assume that, hypothetically, they've been analysed. In practice, however, my comment still stands. They have to be fully analysed, before it can be determined that they are either part of the so-called weak solution or not. And that reveals the emptiness of the entire debate between "weak" and "strong" solutions which has been distracting people for hundreds, if not thousands of posts.

I was only trying to help, by trying to correct your understanding, as I made clear.

I'm not 'sure'.  
Elroch said something about top GM's struggling against computers.
I then tried to research it and found that Nakamura could not beat the computers even with white and spotted a pawn - and did in fact lose one of those games.
But that was Seven Years ago !  
So I am therefore thinking that Elroch is correct on this.
Apparently he has done some other research on these kinds of matches happening since then.
The computers and chess software are stronger now than then.
However much knight odds might be a 'won position' that doesn't mean that GM's spotted that knight advantage are going to beat today's engines.  And the engines aren't getting 'weaker'.  They're going in the other directon.
But would GM's be willing to play such matches?
Have they done so?
Could be Embarassing. 

Yes you did and I didn't think it had any relevance. It's fine for you to insist it has relevance to real games but I don't agree it has. Even in a strong solution, there has to be a limit to the meaninglessness of moves. Otherwise the idea of such a solution is in itself meaningless. The strong solution becomes ultra-weak (in the real sense) because any meaning is lost and a solution does or should imply meaning and relevance. It's (hopefully) solved, relevantly to the idea of chess as a competition.

As it is, there's a strong element of co-operation between the two sides, which collude to unnecessarily lengthen the game and remove its competitive nature. That needs to be recognised and better definitions found. It's erroneous to imagine that those who defined the terms can't have made errors or judgements which shoud be subject to re-evaluation. It's all very well for the tame bunnies to make fun of the idea of anyone thinking for themselves; but the jury's out on whether they possess brains which work. Mine still does, unfortunately/fortunately.

I'm not trying to damage you or your reputation. You've been egged on and it's time to just stop, reassess and readjust to reality.

'Instructions'.  Imaginary authority.  Figures.  Consistent with the pattern.

Completely unfocussed and apparently psychotic reaction to the reality that other people are entitled to express themselves, in accordance with their idea of how things can be improved. Consistent with the pattern.

Another random nonsense "The strong solution becomes u;tra-weak [sic]"

No. An ultra-weak solution involves means determining the value of a game without exhibiting an optimal strategy. A strong solution is the opposite extreme - indicating optimal play in every legal position. Neither does a weak solution (exhibiting optimal strategies) ever turn into an ultra-weak solution (not exhibiting optimal strategies).

I am not sure why you come out with these things, @Optimissed.

At this point, know one is at the argument, we just don't follow the math and the trigonometry (Pronounced= chicken-on-a-tree) That, was a meme.

Alright, let me get to my point, the 10% of active brain cannot acknowledge and cannot come to the point of understand  the point and are of a king. I am in 3rd grade don't judge me.

I redefined ultra-weak for that sentence and a normal person would have noticed. You're coming across more and more as a complete nincompoop. Incidentally, the foregoing was yet another example of you being comprehensively out-argued. You made a complete fool of yourself, I offered you an olive branch and you continue to be aggressive. You are sad. That's all I can say.