Chess will never be solved, here's why

Huh your denying stuff to think before you speak

Your confirmation bias is showing again. You really do have bats in your belfry...what were these images exactly? Would anyone else who is sane like to explain this newly hatched nonsense?

Of course you do. Be my guest!

For example post #12521 quoted and reinforced my helpful post to you explaining the difference between mathematical induction (a method of rigorous deduction) and inductive reasoning (which is always uncertain).

You could learn from his words, where he gives a simple illustrative example.

[Silly me, of course you couldn't, your psychological barriers are way too high].

@12545

"solving checkers took 18 years and over a thousand CPU years"
++ No. The majority of that was for creating Chinook and the endgame table base.
The actual solving took 2 years and 50 CPU, i.e. 100 CPU years.

@12548

"a major misunderstanding of what mathematics is"
++ Goldbach, Fermat, Riemann, Mersenne, Ramanujan are famous mathematicians for what they conjectured, not for what they proved and certainly not for proofs they criticized.
Besides many proofs were at first faulty and had to be corrected, e.g. the Four color theorem

@12542

"do anything to win an argument"
++ I do not want to win arguments, if I want to win, then I play chess. I am only after the truth.

should be judged using asic's. cpu's are y-day for this right ?

@12540

"I doubt humans can add anything today."
++ You should really play ICCF and see for yourself.

Here are some statements by the late ICCF GM Dronov, 3 times ICCF World Champion in a 2010 Interview:

'in a few years they will argue that after 1.e4 it is possible to make a draw'
'I always play to win'
'Why, in your opinion, do you manage to show outstanding tournament results, gaining a big plus in strong competitions?' 'General chess culture.'

Elroch will do anything to win an argument. Literally and I've now proven it, regarding the deleted pictures which were cues. His big mistake was to delete them and gaslight to pretend he never posted them and even get someone to back him up. But I've seen it before, the same. A moderator will be able to see that he did post them and see where the trolling started.

Deleting imaginary pictures is indeed my masterstroke. But I can do more.

I will now make a brontosaurus disappear.

GONE!

Amazing, huh? Not a sign of it anywhere.

@12589

"Elroch will do anything to win an argument."
++ He just makes a fool of himself claiming 1 a4 or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 win for white.

I have explained why it was not mathematical induction. You cannot map a crumpet to a falcon. That post. There is no possibility that mathematical induction could be used to prove what you wish to be proven to help your case. It was philosophical induction. If you don't understand, you are just not very bright. Oh I forgot. You may seem very bright to some but unfortunately ..........

Misrepresentation. No post of mine has claimed this.

Did you post an untruth because you are dishonest or because you are incompetent?

Elroch, for you, arguing with me is like running away from a bear in a wood when you're there with a friend. You don't have to run faster than me. All you have to do is to run faster than the people you are trying to fool into thinking you are right.

You claimed it may not be a loss for white. That's enough to show your incompetence. Ty is being ironic. Lost on you.

Zermelo's theorem is proved using mathematical induction. You can check with literally any mathematically competent person (a passing undergraduate would do, or a bright high schooler) if you are unable to understand the proof yourself.

Here is an example proof again. (The MIT server is a bit slow to download from but it gets there. For convenience, here is the proof:
)

@12593

"No post of mine has claimed this."
++ I claim 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 and 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white.
You vehemently denied this several times, thus claimed the opposite.

It seems you still do not understand the difference between something being very likely and it being certain. I understand that you conflate high confidence and certainty. This is a common amateur error regarding uncertainty.

If you buy a ticket in a lottery where 1 in a trillion wins, it is very unlikely that you will win. It is however DEFINITELY NOT TRUE that you know you won't win. Same for 1 in a quadrillion. And so on.

How difficult is that?

Note that the result of the positions to which you referred would become CERTAIN if they were weakly solved.

It's worth emphasising that the purpose of a mathematical proof is not to convince yourself that something is true. It is to add a truth to the body of what is known for certain. This is a strict discipline, not like playing a game.

Yes, like all the supposed 'alts' and 'hidden messages"