Chess will never be solved, here's why

Just an attempt at a helpful pointer. This post by Dio is one of a type that's dramatically increasing in frequency. An obvious deviation from reality, presented in very strong terms which indicates either a strong desire to win arguments at any price ... or increasingly delusory thinking.

I know that people often like to close ranks but this type of thing should be pointed out, since it concerns a person's health. Minor deviations from reality are becoming quite major ones, which are also being presented in stronger and stronger terms.

This is why people laugh when you accuse others of stealing arguments. You are positing something I observed about you within the past day or two, when I said that your delusionary narrative of your life and objective reality were running away from each other.

There are several hundred articles and videos debunking your notion, which flat earthers have used for years to argue why the earth must be flat, by the way. They are, amazingly, a bit less prone to confirmation bias than you are...they argue that *not* being able to detect a curvature from a hilltop, somehow means the earth is actually flat.

I agree let us get some more data points.

Theory: Factors include the average evaluation after the opening (., the advantage White gains from the opening), the average length of theoretical lines, and the breadth of the repertoire. Main lines are preferred; however, the "modernity" of the repertoire is not considered.

Here is the results for the best chess player of all time on Chess.com. This is all his Rapid games for the last 4 years, and your results. Poor Magnus could only get 67% in chess theory.

But you are a Octopus On Steroids. Wow! You know these opening lines no matter what lines are played. It is almost like you have a computer chip implanted in your brain with nothing but opening chess theory. If you could only improve the rest of your game using that photographic memory. You could become the world chess champion. With a theory score of 540%, you make those other two look like low grade morons.

You're talking complete drivel, Elroch.

This does not say anything about me, only about your comprehension.

You say there's no concept of infinity? It seems that you would say anything to try to win a prize at the fairground. After telling me there's no concept of infinity, I don't need to look further.

This is a reading comprehension problem - I meant there is no single definition of "infinity". Indeed "infinity" is not a unique mathematical entitity. There are different context dependent entities labelled with this term.

I said that the general concept of infinity is that infinite (an adjective, so no longer a single entity) means "NOT finite". Finite is an adjective assocated with different definitions as a property in different contexts. For example, there is a definition of a finite set, and a different definition of a finite integral. The two are rather different. By applying the "NOT" operator, the definitions of infinite are also distinct in these two contexts,.

Maybe I over-estimated you.

Seems very unlikely. I have never observe you over-estimate someone who was not you.

Honestly, I can't see the profit in talking to someone like you obviously are. Right - there is no "profit". You need to find someone who will boost your ego.

Also, you've been relying on this ridiculous projection of "pathological" for a year or two now. Does it mean "someone who knows you're talking rubbish"? Look, we know that you're aligning yourself with a bunch of freaks. You call people who disagree with you "pathological". Anyone would be forgiven for assuming that you're mentally ill, coming out with stuff like that.

No, I use the word pathological because of your characteristics. If it any comfort, you are special - I don't use the word for many people.

@Optimissed is correct, but you need a good location.

In an airplane cruising at the usual c. 35,000 feet on a clear day the horizon is more than 3 degrees below you - easily noticed without instruments - AND you can see the "bulge" in the region of the surface you can see (the horizon is a circle of radius around 368 kilometers, or curvature of around 6 degrees from one horizon to the opposite one).

On top of a mountain with a view of the sea on a clear day, the horizon may be nice and crisp and will be about one degree below you if the mountain is 1000m high. You probably need a theodolite to confirm the curvature, but this has the advantage of being precise and quantitative (and easy - that is a big angle to such a device).

A pretty direct (and very accessible) observation of curvature is to stand on a shore on a clear day and see objects beyond the horizon with the lower parts obstructed - ships, wind turbines, oil rigs.

Opto disagreeing with Elroch means that Opto knows that Elroch is right.

wha-WHAT ?? ...omg sad

35,000 is the most often listed altitude where the curvature is detectable to the naked eye, that is true. Note that you can infer curvature in the manner you mentioned, but you still cannot really see the curvature.

to argue why the earth must be flat

it didnt help help that they could see the litehouse of alexandria from mount olympus. AND even the firelight atop the king pyramid (tho barely)...they say. making those viewing ?...thinking that the earth may a been as flat as doo's personality. i read where they employed (iknow iknow itsa dorky word) water-optical prisms to yackup the multiple for their very own viewing pleasure lol !

To see the curvature - change through motion is useful.
Whether change in location or change in altitude.
But even from a few feet above the ocean well out to sea - one can see the horizon forms a circle.
Would a person imagine that there's nothing beyond the horizon?On returning to land - you can see objects on the land becoming higher above that horizon. 
The continents didn't disappear because one travelled a few miles out to sea!But some might be 'vulnerable' to that.

35,000 is the most often listed altitude where the curvature is detectable to the naked eye, that is true. Note that you can infer curvature in the manner you mentioned, but you still cannot really see the curvature. There's a difference between seeing evidence of curvature and perceiving the actual curvature.

Actually there is one class of example that you should be happy with. What you need is a very long straight line on the surface, so you can see the end of it bends. The effect is geometrically very striking because perspective magnifies the bend at a distance.

Here is one suitable straight line for observing - Lake Pontchartrain Bridge - 38.5 km long.

These bolded bits are all proving my point. You perceive changes at the horizon, and because you know the earth is round, you think you perceive the actual curvature of the horizon yourself even at sea level. But you don't.