Chess will never be solved, here's why

FYI Mar that was a question that was asked by someone else on the forum that I was answering, hence why i put that statement in quotations. Or maybe u already knew that and u were adding extra context.

Sorry. Doing my usual replying to the post and reading it in the wrong order.

But it's enlightening that the above examples are the same engine that @tygxc insists are playing perfect games of chess with a little help from people who would invariably lose to it.

Perfect in that context is not being in a position in which there is a forced loss. 106 draws tends to back that up. Under normal circumstances it would be proof that chess is drawn but there's a problem. It may be that the engines are playing in the wrong way, strategically. tygxc claims that the perfect games are, I think, around 50 moves long. There's the problem. For a real proof, it is necessary to do some groundbreaking work to discover how potential zugzwang positions may be forced, typically in games that would last 150 to 200 moves.

Meanwhile, your playing around by moving aimlessly in forcing positions isn't helping anything. If you're saying that an engine may blunder in a KNN vs Kp position, you may well be right if the winning set of conditions hasn't been programmed in to the engine, together with the winning method, since the win will be over its horizon. Program the engine accordingly and its problem is over.

I read it as 'stupid people', but I am not sure!

OK I accept that argument from a specific point of view. You are perfectly correct if you accept deductive proof as the only acceptable route to a solution.

That is the only reasonable definition of a solution because there is a continuum of belief states over all degrees of uncertainty, none of which is special except the extremes (certainty). With the inappropriate notion of an "empirical solution", it's purely a matter of choice how much uncertainty you are happy with. Every "empirical solution" can be improved with a better one.

When thinking of probabilities, it is easier to mistake 1 and 0 as unexceptional probabilities. This is a good reason why the log-odds scale is more intuitive for belief values. Any probability other than 0 or 1 on this scale is a finite number, but 0 is mapped to minus infinity and 1 is mapped to infinity.

At a guess, means "dumb people" in Double Dutch. I think the German is Leute, spelled with a capital for a noun.

Ah well my own perspective is that you couldn't prove that your deductive proof is correct because it rests on the assumption that your methodology to check the solution is correct. Unfortunately, that's how I think. It is not a simple syllogism and neither can it be reduced to one.

Yes, unfortunately. There are better ways.

It does mean "stupid people", but it's also a German meme, so it can be meant in the sense that a group of people are dumb, or it can be a response to just one person that lumps them into that grouping, ala:

"I think the guv'ment is out to get us..."

"Sigh...rednecks...what can you do?"

I'm accurate though.

OK thanks. Works the same in English English.

Sure with elementary school level math womp womp

Only according to yourself.

Yes that's right. I'm accurate enough to know that from a sort of objective point of view. That's why I seem arrogant. It comes from confidence and the confidence comes from having a great deal of ability in many areas. If a person isn't competent to measure another person's intelligence by how they behave then there's an impasse. Unfortunately, democracy and ability don't mix well.

lo

I sometimes think so too. I tell my wife occasionally. Wonder what she's doing now. It's the Witching hour.

You would be accurate enough to tell that humans including yourself are inaccurate a good chunk of the time