Chess will never be solved, here's why

You always seem to abandon the discussions, makes it look like you just start something for the sakes of it and when it takes effort to back it up you leave. Whats your obsession with rats anyway?

I propose that @Optimissed be recognised as the world leader in giving inflated estimates of his IQ at a very senior age.

Don't know how @Elroch considers himself, but he's apparently got a 2nd. degree at Cambridge compared with crapping out of a computer course and scraping a 3rd. in philosophy at Royston Vasey Polytechnic. He also usually talks sense in very obvious contrast to yourself, so if we address the question of which of you is the brighter, it's a non contest.

Since you bring it up.

With all due humility, I feel a distinguishing feature is precision. I am both more capable of being precise and in the habit of striving to be so. I don't claim perfection, but it is other people who are capable of being precise, like @MARattigan, who spot when what I say is less than ideal. While it seems harsh to be so general, it is difficult to think of an example where @Optimissed has been more incisive in his posts - perhaps he or others can rectify this.

Precision is a tool, not the goal - One can get lost in the details and not see the big picture. This is just a poetic entry not targeted towards anyone in particular...

Alot of the decline in IQ with age has been explained via the Flynn Effect. There's a minor decline but in the past it was overstated... crystalized intelligence increases, which probably functionally offsets the decline. Anyway, I don't think it's right to attack a persons age anymore than if it were their sex or race.

I know intelligence is also an immutable attribute and ideally we wouldn't attack one another so much on the basis of our intelligence, but admittedly I fall prey to doing the same thing. However... it leaves a bad aftertaste, it's too pretentious, it's not actually relevant to the argument at hand... 
Of course, when you deny Optimissed IQ claim you are attacking his intelligence, and I don't see any substantive justification for your skepticism. It seems to be just an attitude that you hold. 
Overall it's sort-of useless to engage in this sword rattling over your IQ, say something substantive and let your argument demonstrate your intelligence.

As @MARattigan and @DiogenesDue indicate - Elroch's posts have always been much better than those of @Optimissed. All three of them make infinitely better posts than 'Opto'. Year in year out. But almost everybody does.
This would become clear to anyone who spots the obvious and persistent pompous attitude in Opto's posts.
Whether they admit it or not.
-------------------
These are forums of chessplayers. They want contests.
They want winners and losers. Verbal winners and losers too.
There's a bug called 'the chess bug'.
Once it bites you can you ever get 'unbitten'?
Most players don't want to be. Chess is a great game.
But there's another bug that can be called 'the chessplayer bug'.
Most players aren't aware its bitten them. If it has.
Its a nasty bug.
Bites hard. Often biting titled players extra hard.
Were Morphy and Fischer bitten severely?
Maybe they already had the chessplayer bug before they developed.
Any famous players have it now? Niemann?
----------------------
Chess will never be solved ... the forum topic.
The chessplayer bug? Solved? For some - never.
Everything starts to be a chess game. For them.
But discussion isn't a chess game. Doesn't have game rules.
The only rules are those the management of the website applies.
And the opening poster - if there is one.
Is it that simple?
No. In addition to rules there's something more important.
Its called policy. More important than rules. And rules come from policy.
All of this is well known but often forgotten.

The same thing happened to me yesterday. The automated system flagged a post I made which contained nothing even inflammatory in it. Maybe they have a bug in the word-filtering system. That'd be unfortunate, since it'd lead to automated bans with no basis.

'Opto' isn't competent to criticize anybody's posts.
He has far too many problems - including obsessions about enemies of enemies and friends of enemies and enemies of friends. Endless transient delusions and phobias.
Flaws in the posts of persons like Elroch and Dio and Martin would be spotted by others - not Opto. But as he regards conversations to be chess games - he will pretend.

Yeah I think that's what I'm referring to with crystallized intelligence. I feel the same effect in certain departments.

If I remember correctly the decline was like 4 points or so by age 75 after they factored out the Flynn effect, but I'd need to look at the data again. (if you're not familiar with the Flynn effect, it's just a statistical anomaly). When you're at 169 and you lose 4 points... you're at 165, no one is even going to notice the difference. It's really just irrelevant.
Now if you're someone down at 85 and you lose 4 points maybe that starts to matter for you.

Though tbh the whole sword-rattling conversation is irrelevant, I forgot what the debate was about at this point.

Sounds like you are showing the opposite. Chess is a game of perfect information (according to the original definition, but also according to weakened definitions referred to in the wiki article). Thus wiki sufficed to confirm something most of us already know.

It was not a good resort for proving a falsehood, but it could only be used for that purpose by misunderstanding it.

Wikipedia is not perfect, but it is generally pretty good on "hard" subjects.

'Dub' continuing to catch up.
But the point might often be missed that Opto obsessing over IQ and trying to use IQ as an argument is deranged anyway. Regardless of how false Opto's IQ claims are.
But like other persons who constantly make false claims -
Opto will simply just switch tactics.
Result: Its for persons other than Opto to have the real conversations about forum subjects and their related subjects.
As progress is made - Opto will keep jumping in and claiming it was him who 'originally' made the progress.
Does anybody care? No. But he succeeds in deceiving newcomers and kids and also in 'recruiting' others who constantly make false posts.
While some posters know to block him and the staff knows to mute him from time to time.
That is the situation.

Having responded, I realised that what he meant was that wiki was not a good source for supporting the false position that chess is not a game of perfect information.

That is true.

During the short time I've followed this thread nobody has ever said we are totally on the verge of solving chess. Your lack of comprehension regarding the flow of discussion and the points being made leaves you too detached from the discussion to provide a meaninful contribution.

Fair enough, I just havent seen it.

This entire debate can be reduced to "the existing game theory model asserts that f(x) = y" vs. "the model should be extended in the form of f(x1, x2) = y".

I've seen arguments for why the model should be extended, but I haven't seen any argument for why it shouldn't be - merely a dogmatic insistence that it isn't (i.e. merely citing what the literature currently says). The people arguing this side seem to lack the imagination to consider that the model could be or should be extended (that's how fields always evolve), and that's where we find ourselves.

Can anyone make an argument that a game theory model which assumes a perfect player is preferred to one which models a player with a limited ability to handle complexity? Since the very purpose of a model is to model reality what could the argument possibly be...?

Or are we disputing that models are correct only insofar as they model reality, and imagining they are somehow true in-and-of themselves....? But how can something be said to be abstractly true, and wouldn't it have no relevance or significance...?

There is an example of not being precise. As studied for the purpose of game theory (just the stuff happening on a digital board) chess can easily be PROVEN to be a game of perfect information, according to the simplest (and oldest) definition (and also according to broader definitions).

This is not seriously open to dispute. It is even (very simply) computer-verifiable.

It's worth reading about how Zermelo's theorem (which is about games of perfect information, with chess in mind) was made more precise over time. It is not uncommon in mathematical fields for mathematicians to correctly believe something that seems obvious, but not to include a rigorous proof of it in their work, but the gold standard is to prove everything.

But you're just insisting the model is what it is, you're not addressing the argument it ought to be extended, which is... the entire argument. You're ignoring that fields and models evolve all the time.

Within the next year there will be people doing PHDs on game theory, adding to the body of literature which makes up game theory, extending its models... and slowly, gradually evolving the field. They'll be redefining existing terms, giving them new context inwhich they may or may not apply, or where their meanings may be modified.... that's how all fields work. Even something purely rational like math is still evolving.

The relevant question is whether the model is accurately modeling reality. And if not, in what way does it fall short and how can it be extended.

I think its fine to challenge the model and either way you define it you can have edge cases with different games that can be practically hard to fit in the definition. But I engaged in your practical discussion and you abandoned it.. So dont be coming back now to blame others for ignoring arguments.