Chess will never be solved, here's why

This is the strategic game. The accuracy by black is far better than the 92.8% given, because the engine doesn't understand the moves.

Sure, The AI was trained by learning how well the best players, and all players compair with each other. As we have millions of the best OTB games that are played on the up and up. To train the AI. And the AI knows the best human level that was ever scored. And that level is scored at 100%.

And just like a computer can learn how to play chess better then any human. You can also train a computer to examine games. To find all kinds of things that do not exist in real human chess games. Unless the human used assistance.

FYI - It is a fair play violation to use opening play assistance [*in live games] on Chess.com.

I did mention that it's for intelligent people only. A few days ago you were telling me that bots don't make random moves. Now you're saying that engines can judge positional chess better than humans.

I did mention that it's for intelligent people only. A few days ago you were telling me that bots don't make random moves. Now you're saying that engines can judge positional chess better than humans.

Well then sincere congratulation are in order for your outstanding opening chess theory, and knowledge.

The AI saw and recognized you played at a 250% opening chess theory level. That is better then the best Grandmaster on the planet.

And you destroyed O's opening chess theory performance of 226%.

This makes you the best chess opening theorist on planet Earth. And 2.5x better then the best Grandmaster on planet Earth.

Again congratulation on this outstanding performance in chess opening theory....

I haven't read it.

A difficult claim to maintain since you responded at length, arguing that mathematicians had got it all wrong and needed a philosopher to tell them how to do such things (not that anything close to doing so was possible).

What you mean is that you have forgotten that.

If it was for my attention, perhaps you should think again. IDD

that's IID, and it is an axiom that is appropriate in many cases, and not in others. It definitely was in the topic being discussed at that time.

is an assumption used in order to make the maths easier. That was explained to us when we were first introduced to Calculus in the fourth or fifth form of Grammar School in the mid 1960s. I imagine that infinite series makes IDD exact and no longer an assumption but rather, an hypothetical ideal.

To bring someone with rusty recollection of school maths up to speed with an advanced topic, IID is an axiom (really a finite set of axioms, but any number of axioms can be combined in one axiom).

It is appropriate very often and on other occasions. That is the nature of all axioms.

I recall one of our silly conversations where you steadfastly refused to try to understand my explanation of how I saw the concept of infinity and how it interacts with some problems in pure maths.

You arrogantly rejectly all of what was know and of which you were ignorant. This was a mistake.

I'm not responsible for your refusal to think well. You would make a good maths teacher and maybe that's what you did.

There are limits posed by the person being taught.

That's provided you can simplify and explain the fundamentals as well as our maths teacher, Joe Stokoe. I still may have been the only one in the class to fully understand the derivation of differential and integral calculus. At the time, I imagined that many of the others would have understood him too.

But your ego has since revised that probably correct belief?

Again as you well know. I used zero daily time controls games. When looking at your games. I used only your rapid time control game.

And again what a out standing result. Scoring 250% in chess theory. GM So could only manage a brain numbing score of only 89%.

Sorry that we have to disagree on this, Elroch. I would have meant that since I am not a mathematician and you are, I would have looked at the bare outline rather than the intimate content and decided that on first principles, it was impossible to carry the conclusion from the premises.

Which is of course absurd! It is pathological to even think you could have a useful view without understanding what you are talking about. Guessing was all you had.

I have to point out that the main substance of your reading consisted of a rather extreme view in a subject which is still being debated.

You have little knowledge of the state of understanding of the topic. Those who use it do.

Certain sections of positivists and others may have determined what they may believe is a correct interpretation.

Those who apply mathematics do not need to consult philosophers to know what is useful, and far less what is true!

I did very carefully indicate that you wouldn't be able to carry your view of "what is known" right across the board. There's WAY too much opposition to the view you hold to be correct, regarding the nature of the ideal concept of infinity and regarding how it may interact with our understanding of the world/reality/ontology/whatever you want to call it.

There is no "concept of infinity". Rather, most of mathematics deals with things that fail to be finite in different ways - ordinality, cardinality and measure. It is very useful to firmly drill into your brain that that is all "infinite" means: not finite. There is more than one way in which things can fail to be finite and the differences can't be ignored.

As a loose and less precise analogy, you might think of classifying life as bacteria and "not bacteria".

Much of this mathematics is very useful and impractical to do without. A fundamental example is the natural numbers. A slightly more advanced one is the real numbers. It turns out that infinite cardinality has importance to the foundations of mathematics, but I am digressing. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - which I respect as a source on the foundations of mathematics! But, to be frank, the Wikipedia article is less dusty and more useful to learn about the ideas.

I'm sorry that you have become upset by our genuine differences in viewpoint.

Your "viewpoint" is one of arrogantly ignoring what is known and understood and overrating the value of uninformed opinions.

chess is probably finite. which means w/ enuf gerbils we can resolve this skroobally mesh.

That's nonsense. Just one of the 30,000 ways that you have been wrong, over the years. Anyone with good eyesight can see the earth's curvature and that was my argument at the time. You're just full of opinions but they're the opinions of a person who cannot manage to see the world as it is.

Any decent surveyor, engineer or artist would see it.

Fictional narratives bolded above.

There's no "status" in debunking your delusions...it's rather easy and a tedious chore, frankly. Many posters do it, presumably as kind of a public service when they see you spouting off. You're a nasty piece of work, and that tends to draw a diversified communal effort.

Nobody really cares about your games. That's why they sit there in the threads you post them in like stones in a riverbed...the water has to flow around them, but other than that they serve no particular purpose.

Why people cut down birdhouses to make more birdhouses?