Chess will never be solved, here's why

So you don't believe in big numbers either? For you numbers stop at some level where they become impractical?

It's bad enough not understanding that infinite numbers are useful and meaningful, but thinking that big finite numbers don't exist is a worse degree of inadequacy.

You're saying he beautifully refuted that? You are indeed a total moron, for all your occasional fine words. Elroch didn't refute anything I wrote. A refutation requires a rational arguments that's well founded on evidence. Elroch isn't in the business of making rational arguments and neither are you. All you both are capable of is "it's right because I say so".

What's more. none of you seem very bright to me, since to make you think one of you was bright they would have to write something that I thought was at least a bit clever and to the point. But all there is, is defending your position and posing. Not from you. playerafar, since no-one could mistake your insane menanderings for intellectual posery.

Your last two posts fall into the category of music criticism by the stone deaf.

@10909

"if you redefine" ++ I do not redefine. Against any opposition means against all moves that oppose, strive against.

"all those who have published peer-reviewed papers on the topic"
++ Van den Herik wrote game knowledge is beneficial in solving a game. Connect Four has been weakly solved in two ways: by brute force and also by a set of rules.

"using the language wrongly" ++ To oppose = to strive against - Merriam Webster

"106 draws do not preclude the possibility that, say, 1 in 200 games between the two players would be decisive?"
++ 30 games are ongoing. What is your bet at least one of those ends decisively?

"no such imprecise inference is permitted" ++ I advocate precise interference only.

They are musical criticisms FOR the stone deaf. Time and time again, Elroch, you've shown yourself as no more than mediocre. All you want is to preserve what little standing you have in this community. You have no intention of involving yourself in diffcult discussions. You aren't involved in this discussion, for all your pretence, because all you want to do is keep playerafar trumpeting your virtues. Your vanity is ridiculous. If you had no vanity, you would be honest. You're dishonest and probably obsessively so.

@Elroch again - we're going to disagree.
I think you're missing the point about how 'accepted terminology' can be counterproductive.
Every now and then - old terminology is replaced for better.
I think you know that.

But I'm not going to do what O is now trying to do yet again.
You don't become 'crazy' because you want to push the time-honored phrases.
"This is simply good practice. Otherwise all uses of language require ab initio explanation."
Language and terminology evolve. Diverges. Improves. It happens.
Why? Because people know that's possible to do.
Instead of 'global warming' the term 'climate change' is often used instead.
Why?
Because the term 'global warming' can be misleading.
More misleading than 'climate change'.
I think that can be improved too - but better terms that are as short haven't come along yet and might not.
I don't see this as 'complaining'.
Its the nature of the situation.

This kind of thing shows why you're ridiculous. This comment by playerafar is utterly pathetic. Yet you, Elroch are just as stupid but it doesn't show quite so clearly.

@Elroch 
O ... that's Optimissed - trying to exploit the fact that you and I happen to be disagreeing on something for now ...
as usual he probably thinks he is being 'very clever' - something he projects constantly.
Then he gets the attention he craves and whines and moans about it.
Everybody does better.

@10920

"1) what is the difference of beliving something and knowing something?"
++ To belief is personal, knowledge is universal.
The title of this peer reviewed paper has knowledge in it, not belief.
Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZero

"2) how do you know there is is not one weird 200 ish move order that wins of black in any of the positions you disregart?" ++ An average ICCF WC Finals game lasts 38 moves only. White has the initiative, an advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn.
The initiative is also treated in Games solved: Now and in the future

Neither of them unilaterally declares victory or superior intellect the way you routinely do, so this is, once again, projection.

"To belief is personal, knowledge is universal."
Wrong on both counts.
'Belief' can be a group thing. So often is. Is often mass-indoctrinated if not most of the time.
Knowledge can be personal or individual and among a small minority of the people. It doesn't have to be universal.

When O is beaten as he is almost every time - he just goes to childish namecalling.
Its reportable to staff but that generally not needed.
When he tried to threaten me recently with reporting- I reminded him that his threats to report were themselves reportable.
He immediately abandoned that tactic. And ever since.
He tried to threaten Elroch too. Over and over again.
O's desperate pathetic kneejerking.

pathetic

Chess.com allows everybody to send me adds and messages during my game.

Of course I can go back to lichess.

The odds of that are the same as if the 106 draws had not happened. You should probably pray that there isn't a decisive result, because when there is, now or in future ICCF championships, your falsified backup position will also be gone, and there will be nothing left but the endless refrain of "I told you so".from every quarter, probably including Optimissed who will switch sides and claim he was the first to point out you were wrong...

Spam in some kiddie thread where it doesn't matter.

@10951

"The odds of that are the same"
++ What is your bet that any of the 30 ongoing games will end decisively?

What im realy asking for is either a decriptive or a prescriptive definition of the two terms.

To clarefy the second question its "if current computers cant find a win. Why do you assume that a much more powerfull computer also cant find a win?