Chess will never be solved, here's why

Black holes - within other 'Big Bangs' is one of the reasons we wouldn't be able to see other 'Big Bangs' elsewhere.
The light from their stars would be subject to their own black holes - including collectively.  A gigantic 'gravity well of curved space'.
Could their light 'escape' that  to travel the enormous gulf of space between one big bang and another?
What about the hydrogen in space blocking its way too?
What about dilution by distance?  Light can only divide so many times.
How about we wouldn't see it?
How could anybody prove we would ?
Remarkable:  Stephen Hawking was apparently more objective about the science he propounded than many of his followers were and are.  

And chess won't be solved for billions of years unless they come up with some much better programming.  Radically better.

Its possible.
Wasn't it computers that 'solved' checkers?
If that's true - then perhaps back in the fifties they might have believed checkers couldn't be solved anytime soon?

Would you guys believe that an official back around the year 1900 was claiming that everything that could be invented had already been invented?
Director of US Patents?  I can't remember - maybe somebody'll google it.
Guess who was working in a Swiss patent office ... maybe around that time.
Einstein?
Did Albert make Swiss cheese out of the notion that everything had been invented already ? 

a

@CooloutAC used to interpret all sorts of things, such as symptoms of boredom, as "concession".

It's all in the detail. My motivation is to share the somewhat subtle point that there is a difference between a genuine speed (which is always limited by the speed of light) and a quantity which has the units of speed (which does not behave as well).

I would observe that it is not uncommon in popular accounts of physics to be misleading in this way, typically in descriptions of the expansion of the Universe. Nothing ever moves faster than the speed of light relative to something else. No amount of argument about space itself expanding changes this. The reason for the erroneous inference is always adding speeds associated with velocities in incompatible frames.

It's been windy here in the UK. A 122 mph gust: that's just over 195 km/hour. It's quite obviously the black hole in this thread that's causing the mayhem. Soon, ourwordswillbecomelikethis.

My points stand.  And the concession now made by him -
"That quantity increases at 2c"
Speed versus velocity? I was taught that 'velocity' could include a vector.
I never claimed that the 2c was beyond a 'magnitude'.  Nor that it wasn't.
But in considering radii of increase ... to get the 2c - diametric opposites are required.  
Nor did I claim that rate of change of passage of time cannot occur ...  I don't know why whoever would so 'focus' ... 

The diameter of an illuminated volume increases at 2c - not c.
Radius at c.  Diameter at 2c.  Very simple math.
And - did we hear about some discussion clubs?  Somebody wanting to make it personal?  Always 'in the cards' here.
Issue:  only one person in the whole forum seems to believe that chess could be solved in 'five years' or less.  Not I.
But that's okay.  Its not personal.  
And that person holding to his position has helped maintain the discussion.  

The light not reaching us?  Kind of 'shady'. 
By the way -  Elroch might fill you in on the adjustments for rate of passage of time  - in the subject you bring up.
Why do I think so?  Because I recall him doing so several years ago - while he was also conceding about 2c and about the Big Bang not being 'the universe' -
Point:  you can get 'intellectual honesty' out of him.
He's generally honest in his mathematical and science positions.
And he's apparently been essentially right in everything he's said about 'solving' chess in this forum so far.  No glaring errors.  Yet. 

#1273
People please stay on topic and if you want to discuss relativity or black holes then make a thread in the off topic forum. Now the few meaningful posts get buried under layers of off topic sense and nonsense.

"Therefore 1. ...a5 may still draw."
If it is proven that 1 d4 d5 and 1 e4 e5 draw, then chess is weakly solved. It does not matter whether 1 d4 a5 also draws or not.

Coming back to losing chess: same 8*8 board, same 16+16 men, slightly different rules, solved using only 10^9 of the 10^36 positions, that is not even the square root, it is the square root of the square root.

It's possible for objects beyond the visible horizon to be moving away from us at a velocity greater than the speed of light. That's because they aren't exactly moving away from us. There's no momentum associated with their apparent movement. Rather, space is expanding or perhaps it's more accurate to say that space is being created, between all points in the universe which don't have a mass concentration higher than a basic figure which is exceeded near all centres of mass (for instance, in solar systems) where gravity predominates. Gravity influences all massive objects, including single atoms, because they have mass, to tend to move towards each other. In a solar system, this mutual attraction is counteracted by the velocity of planets and so on, creating a fairly stable, orbital system. It would be similar in spiral nebulae. A nebula is another word for a galaxy, used usually when it can be viewed from afar. I'm not a physicist but I've always been deeply interested in cosmology.

There are sufficient people here, vaguely or more directly interested in cosmology, for it to be discussed here, in parallel with the main topic. It isn't completely unrelated because it represents an analogous area of thought and it's possible to observe how people think on one subject and perhaps translate it to colour the impression of how they are thinking on the other one, which may provide insights in a rather opaque subject.

Wouldn't it be equally reasonable to ask you to refrain from any mention of "chess could be solved in five years", which is also distracting from the topic?

The number of possible chess games is irrelevant because of the many, many transpositions.
Even the position after 1 e4 e5 can be reached in billions of ways.
It is the number of chess positions that counts.
An upper bound is 3.8521*10^37
https://abldesign.vn/

https://abldesign.vn/gioi-thieu/

#14
Chess even stays a draw if stalemate = win.
The paper shows that the draw rate increases with more time.
Compare figure 2 (a) and (b).

@Elroch is a mathematician, who, like me, is interested in cosmology. He's younger than me and since he's on the staff of the mathematics department at an extremely prestigious university, he will come into contact with physicists and cosmologists, some of whom will have quite firmly fixed ideas regarding "correct" theory in fundamental cosmology. Many people believe the Big Bang to be completely established and correct but I disbelieve that. I'm older and when I was a kid, steady state theories were accepted. The Big Bang became popularised I suppose in the late 1950s or somewhere around there and as a child and young teenager I accepted it. Later in the 1960s I read what I found to be a very influential book by one Reginald Kapp, who was a professor (emeritus) at Leeds University in the UK, if I remember right. He was a Wold-leading expert in hypothesis formation, with a deep interest in cosmology. He predicted dark matter and many other things. The book was written in 1959, if I remember right; and called "Towards a Unified Cosmology". I simply stopped believing the Big Bang idea because it was contrary to correct ideas regarding theory formation. It should never have been proposed and probably wouldn't have been accepted at all had not Einstein argued strongly for uit after opposing it at first. He argued for it because it seemed to support hiw own, incorrect ideas on determinism. Determinism is the fundamental idea that everything is the necessary and only possible result of universal causality. It was pretty much disproven by quantum theory. I do understand the basics of quantum theory because after obtaining an MMath, my son decided to do a PhD in Theoretical Physics. In his first year, he was coming to grips with basic quantum mechanics (QM) and I educated myself by reading everything I could find on the subject, in order to be able to discuss it with him and maybe help him get his thoughts in order, on that subject. So I know enough to be able to think for myself on the subject, to a degree at least. I'm aware that Einstein was wrong. Yet his influence lives on and many people still think that the Big Bang is the best explanation we have. The BBT only survives because of ad hoc ideas that are added to it. Thus, the initial explosion or expansion may not be entirely momentum-driven etc etc. The subject is very confused. For what it's worth, my son agrees that the universe is definitely steady state.

The OP here is gone. There is no OP. There is no reason to discuss it elsewhere, for reasons I mentioned above.

the forums aren't working at all.

that's better

Velocities are vectors. Speed is the magnitude of a velocity, as @Elroch pointed out. As for your point, if a spherical light wave originates from an origin O at time t0=0 and you are in the same reference frame of O, after a time t you see that the distance between O and any point of the spherical front of the wave is c*t. The diameter of the sphere is 2ct and its derivative with respect to time is of course 2c. That does not mean that the points of the surface area are moving away from each other at speed 2c, as you said in post #1257:

An observer A on the surface sees O moving away from him at speed c and a diametrically opposed point B at speed u=(c+c)/(1+c*c/c^2)=c, according to Lorentz transformations, so two diametrically opposed points move away from each other at speed c. Hope that helps.