Chess will never be solved, here's why

Chess is an example of a game with perfect information because each player can see all the pieces on the board at all times. Some IA says. Make sense.... it's like having a decision by consensus to be made by a group of people, you want to know what everyone thinking about the issues , trough listening to all different ideas & point of views , then have everyone vote with simple scales , simple everything etc. I had an old article from the 90s that I found today among other papers but checking it online it's still going on. It says:

"The Glasgow Consensus Statement is intended to function as a useful international touchstone for the training and practice of health professionals, fully recognizing and respecting that different countries are at different stages when it comes to teaching, assessment and policy"

Dio - one major difference between us is I actually listen very carefully with an open mind before I speak. When he makes this claim, I don't immediately dismiss it out of an emotional need to do so. You don't do that, you just reiterate your preconceived notions. You should start trying. Your "functional IQ" would increase by 15 points immediately if you just managed to do that.

But look where it got you. You listened to you girlfriend with an open mind and it turned you into a fruitcake.

You should try putting a little more effort into your posts. More detail than "fruitcake". That was just mental laziness.

Back to projection and condescension, while ignoring the point you can't refute. You couldn't psychoanalyze your way out of a paper bag.

The only change that I am looking for is stronger moderation and community engagement by staff, including monitoring and banning of repeat offenders. Solves all the problems nicely.

And yes honesty does play a role in assessing claims like this as well. And honest people can identify one another. 
Though fundamentally I can just tell, tbh. I don't even need to hear test results, nor do I necessarily feel the need to know the exact number. It's high enough to where "really high" is how I'd describe it. But it's hard to exactly know where you're at once you're in that range anyway due to scatter.

Demonstrate your data that shows anyone can achieve a full standard of deviation increase in IQ by, well...might as well be any means at all, since you're all talk.

Functional IQ is what I said, not actual IQ. i.e. you would speak and act far more intelligently. Because when you get emotional you reach wrong conclusions, like now.

Combining "functional IQ" with the precise number 15 would be your mistake, not mine. I chose to go with the claimed number, which overrides any imprecision on your part.

I do if I'm responding to anything at all interesting.

I doubt if you had any potential in the first place @Optimissed.

Your post contains nothing at all interesting, true. One telltale sign of a feeble mind - the kind which most people have, but which doesn't belong in this conversation, I'm afraid.

Except, unfortunately, he'll probably be back in five minutes.

Your wife-who-isn't-your-wife but definitely seems to be your caretaker is going to get upset.

Run along. Tomorrow, you can reset and make all the same silly arguments again, having never answered anything. Isn't that how it always goes with you?

You stress too much. You might need some OCD medication (I have it myself so I know what it's like). It's not important lol

You can't "read" stress, you can only assume it, and your assumption here is incorrect.

You obssess over non-important things and act like it is some necessary mission to debunk and psychoanalyze everything people say, as if more than 30 people are even reading this thread and it was important somehow. And the same goes for the few other people writing 10 paragraphs to nitpick over 1 little technical thing.

Opto's claims are both false and dishonest. Constantly. Year in year out.
But you might continue to stroke him and his IQ obsessions and other obsessions as he continues to suck up to you.
Maybe most of the last 60 posts are just going to turn out to be such twaddle.
You're not using objectivity Rat. You're a newcomer who doesn't know.
---------------------
And Rat Your idea of 'equal probability' on move choices is suspect.
However much it might technically fit your 'model'.
And you might have missed the fact that when a move has been made that begins sequences of moves that are forced wins (or forced draws) then the 'solving' situation changes. Models that ignore this are lacking.
Forced win positions impact solving more heavily than forced draws - since the person who has the forced draw option might choose to 'play for the win' rather than forcing a draw.
There could even be positions with an option to 'force a draw' and that move is made - but the player making that move will or might have future options to 'release' the forced draw and play for the win even after making that move.
'forced draw' seems to have total symmetry - but things are not always what they seem to be.
In other words 'forced draw' might still not apply to both players.
'Perfect information' is a pothole in the road. There's a lot of stumbling over it.
--------------

Not necessary.
I pointed out that many of your posts are coming out too pale in their text.
So that you know.
Its meant as friendly not critical.
--------------------
You also confused that with a different thing -
that long sequences of nested quotes with interactive text in multiple colors added to the quotes doesn't work for various reasons.
'What colours' isn't the point.
What happens eventually though - is its finally realized if such 'interactive quotes' continue to maintain and grow then that's 'much too garbled' and its realized that too few posters would 'wade through it' and it stops and a new sequence grows.
Its not a complaint. Its what happens.
Most posters don't do that because it doesn't work.
Having said that though - your posts and Elroch's and Dio's are mostly excellent posts. Its a fact.
-------------
And EE just made his usual mistakes of admitting. Like for example admitting to his OCD problem just now while (like Opto) accusing somebody else of having his problems and stress. For which EE has also publically blabbed to the world on multiple occasions that he continues to be on prescription Lexapro medication.
Opto has made no such admission of whatever medications.
Or not yet.

Sounds like you should stop reading/posting here, then. Why subject yourself to people that seem obsessive when you could be off creating whole interstate freeway systems for personal enjoyment?