Chess will never be solved, here's why

I think that if you would pause and think for yourself for a moment, you would realise that in order to find that one black reply to each move by white, it is necessary to investigate very thoroughly quite a large number of black replies to every white move. I mentioned five candidate moves earlier (a couple of weeks since) but I also mentioned that to do the job properly, maybe nine candidate moves would suffice. That would be your "weak solution".

Here the quotation marks are appropriate, since the term is being used incorrectly by @tygxc, based it seems on his lack of understanding of the nature of the solution of checkers.

A weak solution strategy for white requires a response to EVERY legal move by black. None may be ignored, even if Steinitz didn't like them. That's the DEFINITION of a weak solution.

"You are at this point thinking..." ++ No, I am not thinking

Because your constant imagined paranoid scenarios also make you look crazy. Your "reasonable conclusion" here is certifiable. I know, your friends have told you differently. Your "friends" really should tell you how you come across if they are looking after your best interests, but they are just looking for other crackpots to commiserate and gossip with.

Ironically, Optimissed always argued that "weak/strong" solving was poor terminology, and here we see why....two posters that insist on assuming that a weak solution involves less rigor because their thinking is too fuzzy to keep the definition of "weakly solved" in mind. No, the terms are descriptive of the outcomes of the process (solution of the initial position vs. solution of all possible positions). There's nothing "weak" about the methodology, and no wriggle room is granted for silly premises like taking 1 to 4 moves and only checking those, then discarding the rest. The rigor that must be applied to the narrower goal is the same...proven responses across the board (no pun intended).

You're the paranoic though. I'm just mentioning possible scenarios which continue to look more and more possible the more you continue to deny them so ferociously.

In other words, you are responding with paranoia. Whose posts sound more "ferocious" here? Lol. Not mine.

I do know the difference between mentioning possibilities and paranoia and I know which example is which. If it weren't "illegal" here, would you be so bothered and upset, and yet it certainly seems that you're drawing attention to yourself by the personal attacks you make all the time, which could be the result of paranoia. You haven't answered some very pertinent questions I asked you, such as why do you never seem to fall out with some people whom, in the normal run of things, would be your prime targets.

I don't answer your paranoid questions because they are ludicrous and not worth anyone's time. Your ham-handed attempts to coerce Elroch or I to handle your Playerafar "issue" for you look pretty pitiful.

Hint ... it really isn't going to be because you're allied politically, since there are enough differences, which may well be manufactured ones but we still have to go by what we see.

Nobody sees this cabal with an established hierarchy and corrupted moderators etc. but you. That's the point. Your delusions are yours alone. Other people might be feeding you ignorant and illogical theories, but only you have turned it into some twisted narrative that passes for your reality.

I understand Big's concern but it isn't something to be concerned with, provided you don't troll. That proviso does need to be followed, however. Otherwise you are pulling the rug from under your own feet.

You don't get to make "provisos" here. That's another delusion you seem to have problems with. I will continue to post, and you will continue to post (and get yourself muted by your own device). It's been a decade, when will you finally learn that you are just another member of the rank and file here...?

Ironically, you don't understand the subject matter and you don't have the logical ability to make anything of it if you did, although perhaps not understanding the subject and not having logical ability are not unrelated.

I think it is poor terminolgy, yes. Are you featuring high on the list of "The Confused"? Seems so.

I completely disagree with Elroch, by the way. You don't have to look at obviously bad moves. That should be fairly obvious. What is necessary is to develop better algorithms. In my opinion, if I disagree with Elroch then he is 85% to 90% likely to be wrong; therefore there's a confidence factor of 85% to 90% but in reality it's about 100%.

FOREWORD

Irrespective of the tortuously inept output of some poor souls here, of which more may be said later, the real situation is given here.

There are two camps. One camp is led by someone whose ego is the size of Mt Everest, without an intellect to match. It consists of the belief that chess theory, expressed mathematically, will solve all and is indeed the only way forward. This rests on the hare-brained idea that chess will be solved mathematically, therefore we can guess what the result will be. This must be kept secret from those approaching the subject with any degree of honesty, which is why I'm pointing it out. All we are likely to see is a very dense smokescreen.

The leader of the cult of mathematics has been known to claim that there is no way that solving chess can be regarded as a scientific project. This, of course, may not be part of the doctrine, except inasmuch as it may be pretended as true, from time to time, in the cause of expedience: for instance, when he's losing or has lost an argument. He loses arguments so frequently that "special methods" have been built into the received doctrine of the cult, in order to deflect outsiders from discerning that he is fairly useless at debate.

Since chess exists as an entity, albeit one constructed by humans; but since it hasn't been solved; the only way forward is to approach it scientifically. That means it's necessary to devise tests to try to discern what should be the result of best play (or good play). At first, there are no "shoulds" in science. It is only when scientific investigation proceeds sufficiently that definite correlations are discerned, which may be interpreted as "cause and effect on the chessboard", that a good scientist will adopt the "should" approach, in that s/he is testing theory, which in the first case is created as hypothesis. If and only if (iff) the results are such that they support the theory, can we say that they have occurred as they "should" have done. It other words, the results support the emergent theory in that they conform to those results that the theory would predict.

EPILOGUE

I wrote the above for a bit of fun. It goes without saying that there are several people here who won't be able to understand it because they don't have the intellectual equipment to do so. Therefore they will attempt to portray it as nonsense. That is for two reasons. They are obviously unintelligent, since if that were not true, they would be happy to concur with a pretty good bit of writing which points out some truths rather accurately. But also, they don't want other people to understand it because then, those people would change their minds about who is right in this little discussion.

They would realise that, despite the occasional mistake, tygxc is correct in the large picture and his detractors are completely wrong and are merely ego-driven. Thankyou.

the good part is all the biggest primes have also been M primes. the bad part is we're gonna need a bigger compewter to prove it. a lot-LOT bigger compewter !...ppl.

I invite you to read your own post and realize there's not a lick of actual content in it beyond your stated opinions bolded above. The rest is all dreck. Rationalizations and justifications and false assertions of superiority. This is you in a nutshell...somebody who cannot argue points and must resort to this type of stuff constantly.

Since Elroch nor many others here cannot follow me when I make an abstract argument, I don't think that can be used to criticise tygxc!

Don't mistake delusional meandering and occasional assertions with no substance with abstract arguments.

My dreck is correct.

Horrible, American word, though. In this context, I am superior to you because I have a lot more brain-power than you. A LOT more, and in this context, that's what counts.

What's an M prime??