Chess will never be solved, here's why

Vacation is over, back to double crackpots.

There's more of you than two. But then again, maybe as few as only one.

Its weird that you have been in this discusion for 2 years and still dont understand why strategy stealing is not a valid argument in chess.

Why dont you explain what you mean by "chess being complex" ?

He has also made 2000 posts and gotten nowhere dont forget that he just gives the allusion that he is

I mean, he is right. Strategy stealing is not valid in chess. But not becaus chess is complex

Magnus already solved chess

It is very strange that you should think inventing your own terms without defining them leads to better clarity.

Anyone who doesn't understand the term "strategy stealing" can look it up.

I don't know what "transpositional strategy" is. You don't tell me, and when I look it up I can't find it.

Why strive to understand things when you can just make up the meanings as you go along? So much easier...

It's as if you don't even realise you are randomly manipulating undefined ideas in a way that merely superficially resembles real facts. Like a bad LLM.

But now that I think about it, I am being unfair. If P is a false statement, all implications from it are true. For example:

"IF elephants have seven legs then the Riemann Hypothesis is true"

is a 100% correct statement. Likewise your enlarged text is correct. And just as useful.

would like to clarify that the initial person who claimed that there was a strategy stealing argument was tygxc. i proved that such an argument could not exist, (which tygxc could not properly understand, and so tygxc then just ignored it) and I was reminding tygxc (and the others) that that was a fact that was unaddressed by tygxc, optimissed picked up the train of thought after.

How about this description of strategy stealing?

Strategy stealing is a map f from the set of strategies for player A to the set of strategies for player B, where if V(S) is the value of a strategy for its proponent,

V(f(S)) >= V(S) for all S

Don't like it.

Take basic rules chess without the resignation rule and with this starting position instead

Lat A be White and B be Black. Let f map all White strategies to the Black strategy "play 1...Rh1#".

Then V(f(S))>=V(S) for any White strategy S (actually >). What connection is there with strategy stealing? Who's stealing what?

(In fact any map from the strategies for A to the strategies for B satisfies V(f(S))>=V(S).)

True. But it does the job fine! You can't do better than winning. 

they didnt claim that the mapping is accurate to chess, after all you cant strategy steal chess.

MARattigan is correct that my definition is a lot more general than intended. But this is so in a harmless way. To explain what I mean by that:

1. all the usual examples of strategy stealing satisfy my definition
2. If you have a map that meets my definition, it permits the strategy stealing argument (whose conclusion is that the value of the game can't be worse for the the stealer than the victim).

So it is an abstraction that encompasses all strategy stealing examples and provides as much usefulness, but happens to be much more general. For example, if you already happen to know a winning strategy for the potential stealer, you get a generalisation of MARattigan's perceptive example. This is harmless.

Of course, I understand that the appeal of definitions is subjective, but there is no practical downside.

The positive motivation is that it identifies the precise property of strategy stealing that makes the method work. "Anything you can do, I can do better". I think there's a song about that.

I'm saying that strategy stealing isn't valid for the reasons I gave. I'm not very interested in the opinions of many others unless they're good. How many people here are good? Too many don't give proper reasoning for anything but expect people to believe them and too many experts in the field don't seem to have much of a clue either. Someone isn't an expert just because someone here claims they are.

Strategy stealing is transpositional play and nothing more than that.

I mean, this kind of thing is drivel imo.

Actually I just gave the same argument I gave a year or so ago after a little thought about it at that time. But thanks for the clarification.

I was able to predict your (worthless) response almost exactly!

[Also you've never had a humble opinion in your life].

Lol. Speechless at the lack of self-awareness here...