Chess will never be solved, here's why

Small words are better, citizen. They have more meaning per inch of typeface.

Strange you couldn't work that out, cobra.

Lol, that's your attempted pivot? That your diatribe was "on topic"? Did someone say it wasn't? Tacitly admitting I was right about the lack of any real content is useful and bodes well for the fact that you can still perceive reality on occasion, so thanks for that.

You are completely insane, you know. I mean really. It isn't an insult. Have a nice day.

Bigger words are more annoying though

They are extravagant

Careful, if you add just one or two more animals to your farcical list, you're going to forgot which is which...unless you are keeping a list on file, which would be hilarious.

Anyway, anyone who sides with the Doofus is making a fool of themselves. The post is there, in blue. It explains why one side is at least as mistaken as the other if not more so. Doofusses don't do logic or reality.

I'm starting to agree with you a lot more than before.

Demonstrate one "complex" idea anywhere in that post.

You wouldn't understand it, so don't be completely daft. What's the point?

You're actually really jealous, hamster. If it wasn't a good post you'd have left it to be read on its own merits but you recognise that it shows all the efforts of your friends to be in error and that's enough for you. I don't think it can be refuted. Obviously not by you: I mean by someone who has a brain and can use it a bit. The point is that it is impossible to prove that even if a strong solution gave a definite result, it still couldn't be trusted to the degree of certainty that Elroch demands of the scientific side in the discussion. The argument I give against the possibility of a deductive proof is too strong, even though you won't understand why that is.

Jealous hamster trolling hmmm never heard of it

For instance, in the deductive syllogism, the premise that the search was correctly programmed, there were no glitches, no outside interference, correctly retrieved from the engines etc etc etc would have to be stated and such a syllogism would mean nothing if those and other conditions couldn't be proven to have been met. It isn't about whether they can be proven not to have been met because that obviously wouldn't give the certainty demanded for the scientific method. That's even if such a method could ever be possible, which is extremely improbable.

This poster listens to the Howard Stern show, a juvenile radio offering that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Bababooey is about your speed, though, so I'm not surprised you would be amused.

.

The point is you can't do it, and you know it. Run through the whole thing, pick out anything you like and try to explain in depth why it's an interesting or complex idea. I will happily take it apart in minutes. You've already skimmed your post and realized you have nothing to offer, so you rely on the same tired excuse you make every time somebody asks you to drill down on something ridiculous you have said...you pretend you are above it all and that nobody can fathom your thought processes (which is true, at some level, but not in the way you would like to believe...).

Amusing as it is, watching you run away anytime your feet are being held to the fire starts to lose its appeal after a decade.

Lol.

Stripped of your syllogistic goobledegook and other extraneous verbiage added to give the illusion of complexity:

"Even if the search algorithm is programmed correctly, you have to be able to prove it was programmed correctly, which is a feat in itself...but ultimately required to meet the standards of the scientific method."

That's your idea of complex? To remind us of the very basics of how rigorous methodology works?

What do you mean by solved? There are computers that cannot be beaten already. Is that solved? Or just a measure of current technology? As time goes on more technology will allow everything to be solved so the answer is yes.

First...you are positing an algorithmic solution to the middlegame, not a strong solution by brute force. Stay on target.

Second...if somehow technology allowed for a brute force strong solution, you would not really be able to question the resulting complete 32-man tablebase (that would need to include castling et al, in a nod to Martiggan). The method proves out at the initial stages where it is easily checked, and there is no need to second guess it any more than you have to double check every time your calculator adds 2+2.

Third...if you have programmed an algorithmic solution that you believe works, it is easy enough to proves that it works by running the algorithm on select endgames that cover each of the algorithmic evaluation criteria established and comparing with whatever tablebases exist at that point in time. If it works, it will agree with the tablebases 100% of the time. So, it's not really a hard problem relative to the rest of the effort, which is immense.

finally some substance from opt, although you miss some context. The methodology of the program used to solve chess was never the main point of discussion with my fellow math majors. the point of discussion was when tygxc tried to operate on our field, when tygxc claim that HIS points were backed up by deductive proof.

In addition, we found that tygxc made many calculation errors.

- "In my opinion, the mathematics department isn't being constructive. There's not even a possible, projected method available for solving chess in a deductive fashion"

Just because there isnt a known solution for chess outside of brute force doesnt mean that tygxc isnt also making logical fallacies.

"At the end of that, in the unlikely case that it's successful, it still doesn't provide a deductive proof, since too many things could have gone wrong. A glitch somewhere that will never be found, an error in the programming, ..., whatever the result seemed to be. It wouldn't form a deductive proof."

we've gone over this before. there's a difference between a fallacious argument and a syntax error. and the way that maths proofs are constructed leaves little room for human error.

"It means that if the mathematics department sees futility in tygxc's beliefs on this subject, their own ideas are equally likely to be futile."

where'd you get this?

lack of framework in one area doesnt mean that theres no framework anywhere.

Ima be real you kind of missed most of my points.

the main issue is that tygxc is claiming his statements are mathematically rigorous.