Chess will never be solved, here's why

I can send you a sneak peek, if you'd like. It's not a protest against chess.com this time, but against colonialism and techno-tyranny in all its manifestations. All it's waiting for is to hit post, actually.

Your taking a look is not likely to solve anything, and certainly not chess. Have at it, though.

It also seems a little bit silly to call attention to a mute given your history. But you do you.

I'll pass. You seemingly have no interest in actually fixing anything, just tearing things down.

And again - another good post by mpaetz. With the person he's addressing there as usual not admitting it that he that other person is the cause of his situations and his mutes.
He constantly projects too. Just a few posts ago accused mpaetz of being always 'angry'.
But that other person is describing himself. Not mpaetz.
His pattern is to get more and more desperate.
He resorts to indirect namecalling - especially with the word as noun 'trolls'.
But eventually he cannot help himself and the more he is exposed and debunked and refuted the more he gets himself muted.
----------------------
Forum subject concerns a notion 'chess will never be solved'.
There's another forum 'is there luck in chess?'
The two subjects are heavily connected.
But -
Everybody gets to choose for himself/herself what the 'points' are or 'the point' or if or when such a thing applies.
And if they want to think that the whole activity is conducted on a flat earth - that's allowed too.
How would you stop him/her from doing so?
As to acting out on it though - well the chess.com staff might get involved.
Have their 'opinion' too.

I know this isn't the right thread, but how should I actually fix the problems of colonialism and exploitation? By getting into a private jet and flying to a climate conference? And what exactly is your method of fixing things, pray tell?

See? Just argumentative.

He the shadow person knows it isn't the right thread. Right.
Generally - he's never in a forum to discuss the forum subject.
Occasionally - says something relevant to dress it up.
'Dressed up' better when he was TomPEsquire. But for some reason ended that.
And just now - wanting to 'confess'. In his two new posts below this one.

Maybe the way to fix some things is to tear other things down.

I guess I've just internalized the dominant cultural mythos that things are going from bad to worse.

Elroch blocked the guy who seems to love his car tailpipe?
Sounds good. Justice is served.
Maybe EE will start to get it that deleting all one's new posts every day or so is trolling.
5th time? Elroch is nice. Generous. Some don't give 2nd chances.
Of course EE wouldn't appreciate it.
In this forum nobody can be blocked. 
The opening poster closed his account a day after posting the forum.
 But there's still moderators around.
'chess will never be solved' will be 'boring' to EE? He will complain accordingly?
Probably.

I confess to finding you contemptible. You magnify the contemptibleness of other posters like Dio and Elroch who might otherwise be tolerable, if you weren't around.

It takes discernment and strength of character to afford each person their own due without conflating them with others. Just a general thought.

I have found Player's lockjaw approach and expository nature tough on occasion, but I have also learned over time how to skim his format (which is pretty consistent) fast and get the gist of his posts.

I will also tell you (and indirectly others that just cannot seem to handle him and apply all sorts of insults to him and conspiracy theories about him) a secret. Find something you think is worth talking about in one of his posts and just talk about it sans rancor. Watch what happens (this is not actually a secret for most people...I have to admit). When you want to disengage, do so.

If Lola can do it, you can probably do it.

Emanuel Lasker did express the idea that if both sides play perfectly, a game of chess would end in a draw. This concept aligns with the notion that chess, when “solved,” would result in a draw if both players make no mistakes.

Lasker’s perspective is often interpreted to mean that the game is balanced and that perfect play from both sides would neutralize each other’s strategies, leading to a draw12 (1)This idea is similar to the concept in game theory where a solved game has a known outcome given optimal play from both sides.

(1) A question I asked bingchat. Answered by bingchat

Anyone ?

the 'shadow guy' wants it to be 'you and me'. So does the O-person.
Whereas 'tailpipe' wants 'him only'.
And 'shadow' always wants to Mother the other two.
'shadow' wants to invest his time in forums of a website that doesn't allow political discussion which is what he really wants to discuss.
Why doesn't 'shadow' go to the clubs? He wants to 'belong' where he doesn't belong?
Almost certainly all three of them looking for Exactly that.
---------------------------------
Predictions: when I start talking about Game theory in my next post ...
'tailpipe' might get very excited and complain about 'AI'.
But do any of the three ever get anything right?
Come on. Shock us and get something right for a change.

Was reading up some more about Ernst Zermelo and game theory.
There's a term 'zero sum games'. Kind of a buzzphrase.
If I've got it right the term refers to assigning a loss as minus one instead of zero.
And draws as zeroes.
So if somebody wins then the sum of 1 plus 'minus one' is zero.
And in a draw - zero + zero = zero.
Not profound. But if I've got it right that's what 'zero sum games' refers to.
----------------------------------------
Did Zermelo link up set theory with game theory?
Profoundly?
Not exactly.
Apparently what Zernelo did was to simply start acting on the fact that sets exist in games.
Up to that point maybe nobody bothered.
Or it was a 'so what'.
But that's no longer the case. 
And set theory and game theory have developed tremendously.
And Zermelo was great in set theory too. Leading the math community following Russell's paradox - which ended 'naive' set theory which allowed 'anything goes' as to what could be a legitimate set.
A set can 'contain itself'? No go. But a flat-earther might like it.
And noting - Zermelo was very interested in chess.
And connected chess with his work.
---------------------
But Zermelo was one of a long line of greats in a particular context of connecting mathematical abstracts with everyday events including human behaviour. 
----------------------------
For example John Nash.
 John Nash (1928-2015). United States. Nash Equilibrium (1950).
Nash Equilibrium describes situations hypothetical or real where each individual's strategy is optimal given the strategies of others.
Suggesting that in such situations no one can improve their outcome by changing their strategy alone.
Relates to Pareto optimality which refers to situations hypothetical or real where no individual can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
There was a movie with Russell Crowe playing Nash.
----------------------------------------
Am I right about the above? Its not about me.
Perhaps Elroch will qualify or add to the idea of strong parallels between Pareto and Nash.
But Pareto is most known for his Principle.
Pareto's principle is also called the 80-20 principle.
80% of effects are consequences of 20% of their causes.
(will someobody disagree and yell 'That couldn't be exact!')
Its not meant to be exact.

edited moderator AndrewSmith 

And now that we've got the 'you are cursed' comments in hand - 
I can now post a kind of list illustrating the timelines and parallels mentioned in my previous post.

1. Georg Cantor (1845-1918). Germany. Pioneer of set theory and the math of infinity.
Proved that one infinity could be greater than another.

2. Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923). Italy/Switzerland. Pareto Principle (80/20 Rule) (1896).
Pareto did other work besides the 80-20 rule.
He stated that good cannot be measured and replaced it with the notion of Pareto-optimality, the idea that a system is enjoying maximum economic satisfaction when no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
Pareto optimality is widely used in welfare economics and game theory.

3. Ernst Zermelo (1871-1953). Germany/Switzerland.
Application of corrected Set Theory to Game Theory (1913).

4. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). United Kingdom. Principia Mathematica (1910-1913). Monumental enhancements of applying Logic to Math.
Also, Russell's Paradox ended naive set theory and headed set theory on a better course with that effort then led by Ernst Zermelo.

5. Abraham Fraenkel (1891-1965). Germany/Israel.
Contributions to Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (1922).

6. John Nash (1928-2015). United States. Nash Equilibrium (1950).
Nash Equilibrium describes situations hypothetical or real where each individual's strategy is optimal given the strategies of others.
Suggesting that in such situations no one can improve their outcome by changing their strategy alone.
Relates to Pareto optimality which refers to situations hypothetical or real where no individual can be made better off without making someone else worse off.

7. Herb Cohen (1933-). United States. You Can Negotiate Anything (1980).

8. Laurence J. Peter (1919-1990). Canada/United States.
Peter Principle: People 'rise' (get promoted) to their level of incompetence (1969). 
-------------------------------------------------
And yes we see that last one on display in this forum? 

------------------
Point: the parallel of Pareto with Nash.
Nash was born after Pareto died so Pareto could not have been influenced by Nash.
But the converse? Its unlikely that Nash didn't know about Pareto.
Most people have never heard of Pareto it seems.
But there was a movie about Nash with Russell Crowe playing the part of Nash.

Yes Peter's book is fun too 😄

But today AI will answer simply to: why things go wrong?

Things can go wrong for a number of reasons, including mistakes, misjudgments, or events outside of our control.
Why things go wrong
Mistakes: We may make mistakes, missteps, or misjudgments that lead to negative outcomes.
External events: Some events are outside of our control and can lead to negative outcomes.
Physical needs: We may need to take care of a physical need, such as eating or sleeping.
Emotional stress: Our bodies can reflect emotional stress, even when we're unaware of it.
Anxiety: We may experience a constant sense of dread or that disaster could strike at any moment, which could be a sign of anxiety.
How to cope
Accept what happened: Accept what has happened and try to move on.
Ask for help: Ask for help when needed, even though it doesn't make you weak.
Take care of yourself: Make sure you're eating well, sleeping enough, and taking care of yourself.
Focus on the positive: Try to focus on what's going right and what you can manage.
Practice gratitude: Keep a gratitude journal or try to find things to be grateful for.
Stay optimistic: Try to keep an open mind and perspective, and surround yourself with loved ones.