Chess will never be solved, here's why

This forum has become invisible in the list at https://www.chess.com/forum/my_posted_in_topics.

At least for me.

[EDIT: posting this fixed the glitch]

Hi!
Dio corrected your post but I want to correct it some more.
10^120 refers to possible sequences of moves not positions.
Which is more like the Tromp number. About 5 x 10^44.
Which is arrived at by cutting down from 13^64.
The Tromp number is a very formidable number that tablebasing hasn't put any kind of Dent in yet.
More like a tiny scratch.
-----------------------------
Where did you get 100 possible moves in a position? That's rare.
A queen can have up to 27 moves possible - a rook 14 and a bishop 13 a knight 8 and a King 8.
But its very rare they'd all have maximum moves available.
Middlegames often have around 50 moves available and endgames around 30.
But the average would be less than that.

I don't get the point of this post

Multiple personalities = Multiple points

Looks like the O-guy is describing himself again. Angry and not having a clue about proof.
And thinking its about 'persuasion' rather than people thinking and finding out for themselves and making their own choices. 'you have to'. He has no authority but never realizes it.
Wait - what happened? I read his post. Well it was short but as usual with his posts - wrong.
As for the other two posters (not Dio) - yes - multiple points would be too much for them.
No surprise there.
As O gets more and more outclassed - he gets more and more desperate - first trying to insist he's 'more intelligent' as a defenisive tactic that never works - then reminded he isn't - then gets angrier and angrier and more and more projecting and eventually gets himself muted. Again.

Clearly you are. Perhaps you should walk the talk and just ignore me if you are being truthful (minus the part where you pretend to speak for everyone, of course).

Which brings us to the key question - will tofu be solved in our lifetimes?

[EDIT-4K] advertising 

Will Tik Tok have the answers? Tick-Tock.

Tofu I understand. People tolerating the texture, I do not.

A lot of mathematical and math-related subjects have come up during the course of this forum with over 16,000 posts ...
Fourier analysis was mentioned. And work by other mathematicians.
Set theory and game theory have both come up.
And the name ... Zermelo.
Ernst Zermelo. German mathematician.
But his surname is often spelled without the r.
Anyway turns out he was great in both set theory and game theory.
Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms are now the most commonly used system for axiomatic set theory.
But Zermelo also stated at least one thereom in game theory too -
In game theory, Zermelo's theorem is a theorem about finite two-person games of perfect information in which the players move alternately.
And obviously chess is a game of perfect information.
Because both players can see the entire position. Unlike in poker.
Some will want to argue about the meaning of the word 'perfect'.
Failing to realize that the point is what 'perfect' refers to in the context.
------------------------
"In 1912, during the Fifth International Congress of Mathematicians in Cambridge, Ernst Zermelo gave two talks. The first one covered axiomatic and genetic methods in the foundation of mathematical disciplines, and the second speech was on the game of chess."
"It is generally agreed that the first formal theorem in the theory of games was proved by E. Zermelo1 in an article on Chess appearing in German in 1913"
Zermelo was very interested in chess.
'his theorem has been applied mostly to the game chess'
but - in the same article:
"Zermelo's algorithm is a cornerstone algorithm in game-theory; however, it can also be applied in areas outside of finite games. Apart from chess, Zermelo's theorem is applied across all areas of computer science. In particular, it is applied in model checking and value interaction"
------------------------
Do we have to accept Zermelo's theorem in game theory?
There's a difference between 'accepting' and 'applying' although the latter is a strong argument for the former.
It also seems that Zermelo linked his work in set theory to his game theory too.

I think "doubtless" is doubtful.

ZF came along, as you put it, in 1922, five years before the second edition of PM. As I mentioned, I've only browsed the second edition, but it seems to me that his theory of types remains basically intact (unless you can find something to the contrary - 2nd. edition).

In that case Russell's system is incompatible with ZF, because most of the latter's axiom schemae include statements which, in the intended interpretation, are not true according to Russell's interpretation, but rather, nonsense.

(In fact Z "came along" in 1908 before the first edition of PM and the same is true.)

I've read that after producing the second edition Russell confessed to being totally knackered and effectively retired from further considering the subject.

When you say, "once ZF came along", by the way, I believe, after the publication of PM it was more like London buses, except the destinations were not always consistent. The fact that ZFC has been settled on as a kind of standard is, I would say, somewhat arbitrary, which is why I earlier described it as "work in progress".

'somewhat arbitrary' .... I'd kind of agree with that.
But in both set theory and game theory - (and game theory is a Very big thing nowadays - extending beyong 'games' apparently) - the work of Ernst Zermelo is considered very basic.
In set theory - the whole business of Russell's Paradox seems to have been based on the idea of allowing 'unlimited composition'.
Meaning as far as sets existing 'anything goes'.
That had to get that tidied up. It was decided that to have good set theory you couldn't allow any old sets as it were. Sets had to meet standards to be legitimate sets.
That seems to be the gist of it.
I'm using the word 'seems'. I'm not 'claiming'.

opti's back ...yay ! hi opti !

And yet, you haven't even addressed the point that I made:
"The problem with Chess being "solved" is that, we can never figure out human intuition completely. We will never know what our opponents next inoptimal move would be. Even the most learned player could fall prey to a moment's dumb luck on the part of a lesser experienced player. That aside, My main question: do we CARE and WANT chess to be solved?"

Apparently a three month ban isn't enough for some people.

It's a privately owned website. They can ban people if they want to.

ohh plz dont ban me...plz dont ban me...plz dont ban me (wait...better yet - put me outta my mizury...yee !)

blackberry? ban?
Regarding mute as opposed to ban -
it appears the O-person's mute has been renewed.
But somehow Dio was muted too. Which should not have happened.