Chess will never be solved, here's why

That's what this is: a war zone. It so happens that there's a small group of them and they just pick on ppl to try to scare them off. Especially if they disagree about something. Especially on this and another thread.

I know what you mean but we sort of learned it at school. Dio isn't as thick as he seems but his emotions sort of prevent his brain from working. He argues from reflex only, Doesn't understand what he's saying but just knee jerks. Completely incapable of understanding logical arguments, which for him are just a jumble of words. Lives completely in a fantasy world but pretends everyone else does.

". I have given irrefutable arguments why a deductive solution for chess is impossible. "

this is self contradicting fyi

I always got on with him .... didn't think there was anything wrong.

Yes but it isn't remotely the same as you at least he isn't sexually harassing people from what I have seen

fyi @dasamething optimissed is a known troll who has been muted by chess.com before.

Same he just trolls beginners a tiny bit but that's it lol

I got muted to but not because I was trolling I was replying to one of dios comments

I like the analogy.

no i was talking TO you, the person muted was optimissed

No it isn't. Let's say that you have ten cents. You spend three of them but find a coin on the floor. How much money do you have?

I can give an irrefutable argument as to why no deductive solution for that puzzle is possible. It isn't self-contradictory and it's pretty much the same thing as the chess argument.

I thought you were more knowledgeable and intelligent than you are but maybe your answer to Lola was ChatGPT, because it wasn't bad. You aren't capable of it, imo.

im down to talk but at this point its just going to be me (or someone else like elroch, MAR, or dio) explaning the facts to you, while optimissed and tygxc interject with their fallacies.

liberals are perverts, so what is the point to admitting.

i wouldnt come to this island then. u wont fit. and besides e/o here will know exactly where u are.

I still don't know why. Made a post at exactly 4 pm Sunday and was muted in a microsecond. No reason, no bad words unless I typo'd. It said for a week but it lasted three days.

no you thought i was intelligent only because i sometimes heard you out. you dont actually have a measure of intelligence.

theres no point in bringing what you say up to my fellow mathematicians/math majors because you dont actually care. I know what they are going to say. "why are you wasting your time with this guy, he doesnt even attempt at being logical". i knew what they were going to say with tygxc too, its just that tygxc actually admits that there are people who know more than he does.

its hilarious how your entire argument of chess not being deductively solved is "we dont know if theres an error in the code", thats not a proof lmfao, thats you just undercutting human error. you are just claiming against the existence of a deductive proof as a whole while selectively applying it to arguments you dont like.

"such as it is ... it isn't very strong, no PhDs at all"

im on track to get my phd in a few years (despite your claims otherwise), but your opinion wouldnt change.

Is it? I see it as merely dubious (wrong according to a strong interpretation of "impossible").

It is certainly possible to prove that it is impossible to prove things. Godel's first incompleteness theorem is an example of such a proof.

When it is "impossible" to solve chess depends on whether you use the word in a rigorous general fashion, or in a practical way. For example, it is impractical to drive at 10,000 mph, but a purist might say this is not really impossible.

Likewise, there is no doubt that it is possible to solve chess from the point of view of game theory. It's a finite game of a general class where general theorems guarantee such games have a solution. So mathematically, the opposite of the forum title is true: any claimed proof that it is impossible to solve chess even with adequate computing resources is definitely wrong.

I don't know how @Optimissed claimed to have shown the impossibility, but the most respectable way would have been to consider the size of the problem and the practicalities of computing power. This would of course would be a conclusion that might have a expiry date. [I read some recent research that came to the conclusion that there was no upper bound on the amount of computing that could be done in the Universe, so it's just a matter of time.

It's rather amusing to think that our descendants would even be bothered with an arbitrary old game, but maybe tradition persists.

It's still childish. If you can't go at c then you can't go at c. The analogy is that you are basing an argument on the belief or idea that you CAN go at c. So the analogy illustrated my argument. I suppose he isn't bright enough to realise he was supporting me.

the issue was that optimissed's "proof" was just claiming that you cant be sure that you have gotten rid of human error, or be sure that there wasnt a programming error. godel's is axiomatic.

optimissed's claim that his own proof is "irrefutable" contradicts the claim he makes in the proof that you can never be sure that there is not human error in a proof.

@dasamething https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=591#comment-103385763 this is a pretty good summary of the state of chess solving

That was all considered in depth two or three years ago on this or that thread and I worked out that a solution would take billions of years. Later, other people reached the same conclusion. Then I started thinking about logistical problems if the solution COULD be found. How to retreive it. How to store it. Most importantly how to prove it's correct.

You can't. You really ought to attempt to think about it. I think that surrounding yourself with children and people with childish intellects (hesitate to use that word) you're getting yourself lost. I'm clearly far brighter than the lot of you put together but since I disagree with you, you fight against that realisation tooth and nail. If I agreed with you I'd be a hero.