Chess will never be solved, here's why

FYI optimissed you should realize that the zermelo stuff applies independently of game complexity.

you should also realize that your definition of a 'mathematical representation' is improper, and that's causing your misunderstanding.

you are interpreting 'mathematical representation' as a human-written algorithm to guarantee and verify a solution of the game.

but a game as a mathematical object/representation is just the ruleset of the game expressed in logical language. human abilities and technology have no bearing here.

Basic chess positions, as for pretty much all the numbers bandied around. I don't think a single number has been posted even incorporating moves to zero (just multiply the basic numbers by 50 or similar).

And I'll repeat again, basic chess positions are entirely adequate for a weak solution of chess (dealing with a 50 move rule in generating a proof tree is simple). And it is such a weak solution that is the focus of the majority of this discussion - it is the meaning of "solved" that is being addressed.

Your point that strong solution of FIDE rules chess is much more impractical is correct, but not so interesting. There is no strong solution of (basic rules) checkers yet!

It is amusing that @Optimissed is unaware that mathematical theorems (such as the general form of Zermelo's theorem) apply to a class of objects with given properties and that the size of an example is irrelevant to the truth (unless it is explicitly part of the conditions of the theorem).

Yes. O had that crazy 'mapping' idea and apparently invoked 'semantics' on Dio's use of the word crumpet. It was very lightweight and 'pseudo' by O. But that's not new.
Led to him taking days off.

I maintain that tygxc is a Giant in the positive sense of the word - compared with the O-person.
And the way tygxc goes at things its like he Wants us to oppose him.

That isn't possible. It's like you don't understand the difference between second order differential equations and your mummy adding up the shopping list. Come to think, I don't expect you do understand the difference. You're clueless. That post is pretentious gobbledegook and you could not win an argument with me in a months of Sundays.

Would you mind controlling your alts please?

You are ridiculously pretentious. Amusing? Sad how you hide behind your trolls. How can anyone possibly have respect for you when you allow that kind of thing to take place, in the belief that it protects you from me?

I berlieve that you are not very intelligent. You are not inteklligent enough to be able to work out why Zermello's doesn't apply in the way you want it to. You are using Zermello's like a magic axiom that allows you to persuade people that you are right and yet since chess isn't solveable and Zermello's says it IS, according to you, something has to give. I suggest that you should give way to reality.

You are talking to me, tygxc and basically to a bunch of people without any brains who are not capable of reaching conclusions unless you tell them what to think. Sorry but that's the truth. A lot of pople ar going to agree with me and disagree with you. I mean, a lot of mathematicians who are also realists and who don't expect pure maths to get them off the hook.

I highly doubt you know how to do differential equations lol, nor are they relevant here. either way, that was a couple years ago for me.

that "gobbledygook" was 7th grade maths btw.

it's quite hilarious how optimissed like "zermelo's theorem doesnt apply to chess" when the example that zermelo used that his theorem proves was chess.

I wouldn't know what 7th grade maths is. You mean it's something you learned at infants school? You're an American, apparently. I'm not.

What I do know is that you are quoting things without understanding what they mean. Yes you can define a game by its rules but that isn't what's meant by representing it mathematically.

You sound just as obsessive as Elroch. Are you quite sure he isn't coaching you in everything you say?

Zermelo's Theorem is bogus when it comes to chess. Like a lot of Victorian-age theorists, he cheated. You probably think that he didn't use philosphical induction, which is non-deductive.

I think Elroch is coaching you. Can you think for yourself?? Ever??

"What I do know is that you are quoting things without understanding what they mean. Yes you can define a game by its rules but that isn't what's meant by representing it mathematically."

Except for thats literally what it is LMFAO.

it's the definition of the mathematical object

"The games studied in game theory are well-defined mathematical objects. To be fully defined, a game must specify the following elements: the players of the game, the information and actions available to each player at each decision point, and the payoffs for each outcome. (Eric Rasmusen refers to these four "essential elements" by the acronym "PAPI".)"

basic wiki search.

btw im only using ethos here because i know you dont listen to logic.

LMFAO spoken like someone who didnt read the proof. God i wish i reached category theory already.

I mean, Elroch protects himself with playerafar, Dio, bigchessplayer etc. Just trolls who never had a thought in their entire lives but who habitually use insults in order to protect their master. It would seem pathetic to most normal people.

And the only reason is because I disagree with Elroch and I don't like being bullied. That's the entire sum total reason he does it. Is that not pathetic? Can't even argue for himself. The very fact he doesn't object to the trolls supporting him is contemptible and it completely discredits him.

@Optimissed, he is right and is surely far more capable of doing mathematics than you, as well as understanding it.

Mathematics is the study of abstract truth. While it concentrates very much on results that are as general and applicable (for revealing more truth) it includes petty things like an arithmetic problem or a chess problem. This is because these can be represented abstractly and the truth of the answer proved using deductive logic.

Finding a weak solution of chess is a big chess problem (hence, in a general sense, a mathematical problem - see above). To be pedantic the problem includes both the detemination of the optimal value of the game (proven to exist by Zermelo's Theorem) and then the exhibition of a complete way for each side to achieve that result. Just like a checkmate problem where you have to say how to respond to every legal move by black all the way to mate. (It's highly likely that the solution of chess is actually two drawing strategies rather than one mating one, but all that changes is the objective).

It is interesting how you are blind even to the possibility that you might be wrong in your spectacularly arrogant proclamations about a short proof that you don't understand - Zermelo's theorem - and how that makes you appear to those who do understand. This is the consequence of passionately held absurd beliefs - to you, it is impossible that you are wrong and everyone else is right, isn't it?

Nah I didn't even protect elroch at all I made one comment max lmao and who's insulting who in this post .... I'm very perplexed by this comment

@Optimissed sometimes fantasises that either all the people who disagree with him are alts of some single Nemesis, or that there are secret cabal meetings to co-ordinate the imagined war against him.

Maybe I should create alts to disagree with him make his fantasy a reality

Besides I hardly find anyone interfering anyone in this thread other than maybe mega,or dio so I dunno why he's pointing me out lol