Chess will never be solved, here's why

Oh, hey! It appears that I posted in this thread about 3 years ago! I completely forgot about it.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=829#comment-66772749

Seems like my sentiment has 58 thumbs up, 15 thumbs down, and a few other goofie emoticon reactions. Though, I'm going to guess that these numbers will fluctuate, now that I called attention to them. (The thumbs down is probably going to rise, mayhaps? lol)

'we'.
Everybody has a different take.
Nobody is subject to somebody else's question or 'point'.
Questions and whoever's 'point' don't have auras over them or light coming out of them.
But for some - they do seem to entertain that notion about their 'point' or question.
Nobody is even obligated to read whoever's post completely or at all.
Whether they're quoting the post or not.
Who has authority here? The chess.com staff.

And Somebody has 'authority' over the staff.

Well, look there. I ask for a response, I got one.... a very literally one about RIGHT to not respond.

Looks like someone has trouble handling his emotional issues.

No, I wasn't banned. I don't think mpaetz knows what he's talking about.

I'm guessing he's the same embittered troll who's been allegedly "stalking" me under YET another username. (As my cousin Dromina pointed out to me)

This argument does not pan out, not least because you don't even need humans to play chess anymore.

Read up on solving games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

If the game were strongly solved, it would not matter what positions out the 10^44 positions were reached, for example.

Right, but that's solving the game under a series of moves that a computer finds pleasing and logical. We humans rely less on TOTAL AND COMPLETE logic, and partially on knowing what ticks our opponent. That is aside from the fact that one logical standard may not necessarily hold a monopoly as what is considered "the right thing".

Again, even if a move is not considered by some logical standard to be optimum, the fact is that knowing how to corrupt our opponent's strategy by a move not fully pre-determined by logic is very valid and could be very powerful to win a game.

Computers don't "find moves pleasing". Chess is currently being solved backwards from mate, by brute force. Not a "pleasing or logical" path. All paths. It's going to take quite a while ...but that is irrelevant to debunking your argument.

Tablebases: for any endgame less than 8 pieces (minus some outlying fluff that I would not bother mentioning except that I know Maratiggan will say something if I don't caveat the statement), you can play any possible move and, by the storage of brute force calculations, the tablebase can tell you optimal play from that point. Period. There's no alternative strategies, there's no "suboptimal surprises that knock the tablebase off its game", etc.

This discussion is about whether the game can be solved per the definition in the Wikipedia link I posted for not just 7 pieces but the entire game. Human beings can't solve chess themselves nor could they even figure out/remember how to do it if a 32-piece table existed to show them. That's not the point of this thread, though.

Dio, you should read player's posts about how no one person gets to define what "the point" of this thread is.

I have no idea who you are, have never argued with you here, and have no other username. You might note that I use my real name here.

My reference was to Optimissed, who was muted for months but returned with the same insults and accusations and is gone again.

Glad to see it was only a short mute.

I think that is probably the standard email chesscom sends whenever you get multiple reports, whether it's from game chat or anywhere else on the site

Opti--now that your posts have reappeared you can go back and see how many times you have denigrated others' intelligence and honesty, and accused posters of being in a cabal to attack you. If these people are as foolish and underhanded as you believe it should be obvious to anyone, so there is no reason to escalate the amount of vitriol and unpleasantness in these forums.

Again, it's nice to see you've returned.

Mpaetz, my mistake. From the order of the posts, it did give somewhat an impression that you were falsely ridiculing me for my opinion. But it seems I read you wrong.

In actuality, I do have a begruntled member here who I called out for his sexist behavior on my cousin; calling her "he" and a "bro", after persistently being asked politely to stop. ("Bro is used as a unisexed term" was his excuse... the same one people on this site had leveled at her after learning that she was a female... whereas they wouldn't have called her "bro", had they known she was from the beginning. I guess I won't divulged too much more of our personal drama.) This member has since been trying to tell me off randomly in the off-topic forum, thumbing all my cousin's and my posts down just because WE'RE the ones who made the post (childish).

Anyways, I hope you can accept my sincere apologies.

As for your counterresponse to me, DiogenesDue, I will come back to it some time today. or tomorrow.

I believe you that the email refers specifically to game chats. I just suspect that it's the only email they send when they mute someone. Maybe I'm wrong. It sounds to me like the email was just a formality, and didn't bear any specific reference to your case.

Mpaetz should eat a Snickers

It's my understanding that most sporadic tempermentality is caused by hunger in between meals.

No problem, no offense taken, thank-you.

I would think you were busy determining your next protest thread, to be locked later.