Chess will never be solved, here's why

I see your limitations then and must accept that it's beyond your control, because I know exactly what "informed" and "uninformed" mean to you. They have always stood as references as to whether an opinion is right or wrong, measured by whether it agrees with your own opinion. Nothing else.

I don't know why you choose to bring up the paranormal thing. It doesn't seem very relevant unless you think it will win you a couple of cheap votes.

We live in a World where many people disbelieve in the possibility of the paranormal or supernatural (they mean the same) and many people believe that it exists. I would think that the numbers believing it exists outweigh the numbers believing it doesn't and there are many undecided too. I'm an atheist for reasons that I would explain if it were allowed here but I do accept the reality of things like clairvoyance, some forms of telepathy, things that are variously called paranormal or miraculous etc. Again I could give a reasoned and detailed explanation of why but there's no need.

It's your attempt to win a point by means unrelated to this argument, since you probably suppose that only silly people believe that sort of stuff. You aren't doing very well but never mind, it's only to be expected.

.

I just took a quick refresher course on mathematical induction, since I learned it many decades ago. The course consisted of a really bad teacher, I think called Khan, explaining sums of consecutive numbers from 1 to n, as given by the formula n(n+1)/2. He managed to show how if it counts for a number k it counts for k+1, k+2, k+3 etc.

Firstly it's all just simple logic. Secondly, the average of a consecutive series of numbers to n is (n+1)/2 and so the sum is n multiplied by the average. OK so all very trivial.

The idea that you can use that kind of linearity to extend a mathematical depiction of a simple game like noughts and crosses into a proof that the same is available for chess is mistaken and Zermelo was wrong about it. Simple as that. Yes he's a famous mathematician. Yes, mathematicians always jealously protect their own. No, mathematical induction, which is a simple process of logic, does not and cannot be used to make a case that the impossible is possible. Noughts and crosses is not commensurable with chess.

I accept I'm making a claim. I already asked what my wife had to say about transfinite numbers. She's a psychologist. Mensa measured her IQ pretty high. 156 or 158. She's extremely bright. She thinks Cantor was a nutcase. Strangely enough, he was a nutcase. Then I asked my son when I was talking to him alone and he told me how important Cantor was for set theory. Nothing more or less. So he wasn't going to question him but perhaps nothing has caused him to question it so far. Maybe my question will have set him ticking. I would have liked to have been able to ask my father. Never mind. My wife's instinct was that Cantor was a nutcase. Using a bit more logic than that, I just thought he overstepped and he was describing an hypotheticality which he became caught up in and came to believe, which is what mentally ill people do. And my son supported Cantor because my son is a mathematician.

If I had a higher opinion of your ability to genuinely question, I would take you more seriously. I have never seen evidence that you are capable of it. Perhaps more tellingly, you never admit you lost an argument. That's the boy who cried Wolf! You aren't to be taken seriously in a situation where you are in danger of losing an argument.

I was wondering if you would get a 3 digit score on an IQ test these days, based on your posts. I am not sure. I bet you don't want to find out!

You are not to be taken seriously. All you wish to do is to pretend to your supporters that you managed to prevail but you didn't. You have not proven that chess can be represented mathematically. You have dishonestly used the faulty judgement of another mathematician to support your case. I asked for a proof that Zermelo's Theorem can be used to prove that chess may be depicted mathematically in an exact form. You are unable to provide it. Therefore you apply double standards. You demand of others deductive proofs which you cannot provide for yourself, parasitically hiding behind misrepresentation and deliberate misinformation.

Your delusional worldview is showing through...

1. There were no personal attacks in that post, and certainly none that rise to your level of namecalling.

2. Zermelo's Theorem = proven

3. Cantor = well respected, not dubious as you would imply just becasue you skimmed something of his and failed to understand it.

You not only never admit you've lost an argument...you routinely claim to understand everything better than the most famous authorities on the subject. This should tell you and your crackpot fanbois something...

Einstein, Cantor, Zermelo, every authority ever in Thermodynamics...all hacks compared to you and your judgment rendered with 15 minutes of skimming over their ideas. Heck, you think the majority of philosophers (you own field of choice) are bunk and that you are inherently better.

Yes I suppose I'm a clever guy. Einstein was good and I only dislike him because of what he did to Mileva Maric and their son. There are lots of good and clever people but you managed to forget that I dislike Newton. Cantor and Zermelo aren't important. What they did was simple and if not they, then others would have easily achieved it, probably without all the deception. I think you're an extremely innocent person. There was a big amount of BS with many famous people. Ego and the lengths they would go to to perpetuate their fame .... you forget that I studied philosophy. It made me realise how tenuous is the fame of some past, famous people. You read one philosopher and he's saying the opposite of another. They're both mainly wrong. Maths is no different really. If it doesn't serve a purpose then it's useless but it can't be disproven. That's falsifiability. If something is not falsifiable, it isn't taken seriously. Cantor's transfinite series is useless. Zermelo made weak industive arguments amd presented them wrongly as mathematical, logical induction. You can't get to solving chess mathematically by logical induction and Elroch's problem is his ego. Not capable of self-questioning and neither are you. Like children.

Only silly people believe "that stuff", yes. And you believe in far more than clairvoyance...don't make me break out your crazy beliefs regarding your "abilities"...

Ooooh.

I suppose you're more like Elroch than many ppl imagine, Dio. I shouldn't be proud of it.

Oh, I didn't forget about Newton, or Turing, etc. You routinely disparage anyone and everyone, alive or dead, in order to play king of the hill and protect your fragile psyche.

A bit dishonest that I disparaged Turing but it does serve to show how completely dishonest you are. Let's do a test. How did I disparage Turing?

I'm waiting ...... or were you deliberately lying?

Again.

I'm cooking, you muppet. Try sitting on your hands, like when you have to pee. Your posturing is undignified.

Lol. You already know that you did, ergo the "bit dishonest". You just said it in the past day or two, so I'm sure people will not have forgotten. You downplayed the impact of Turing's role at Bletchley. This might be possible with other various team endeavors in history, but not so much with Turing. There's a reason the machine is named after him.

I'm surprised given The Imitation Game that you did not come right out and say that the woman who helped him in the movie actually was key in the process, or behind the bulk of the work, as you implied with Einstein.

[Yes, I know that she was a fictionalized amalgam of all the women who worked on the project...let's see if Optimissed knows that.]

this is just for me to understand but what exactly does it mean for something to be solved and what exactly makes a move more solved than another? advantage? and if we're solving chess, fastest way to checkmate? or

There are a few different types of solution of a game, but what they have in common is that they tell you the optimal result of the game with perfect play, with absolute certainty. Tablebases provide the solutions of all the games which start with a small number of pieces on the board in a specified position (technically, they provide a strong solution of all of them, the most informative of the three main types of solution).

The wiki article is a painless way to get up to speed on the issue (and explains what I refer to above).

Nope. I mentioned that there were others who contributed and were just as vital as Turing, since they did most of the work on the Tunny code. Shows the sort of person you are doesn't it? YOU are downplaying THEIR contribution. Turing has been romanticised but still did a lot for the war effort. As much as Mitchell who designed the Spitfire and as much as the Aussie general who held Tobruk against all the odds. And some others. Auchinleck, Montgomery. I have a signed letter somewhere from a Gurkha who was awarded the V.C. for single-handedly taking a hill in N Africa and wiping out a machine gun bunker, which enabled the hill to be held just in time to stop the passage of the German attack. You never know, he could have won us the war. If he hadn't done that they could have taken Libya or something and won the war. Any number of people you are systematically dissing by worshipping only the chosen heroes. You're just a kid really.