Chess will never be solved, here's why

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.

Wow, AI is so much better than you. When can we expect a full replacement? Sooner rather than later, I hope.

As I thought - 'tailpipe guy' getting excited about AI.
And shadow trying to run down power9 makes power9 look good.
Anybody shadow is trying to run down is probably doing the right thing.

And Tailpipe maybe will want to make the forum be about climate science denial.
So good to post around him instead of feeding him.
Like shadow - his posts can be used as placeholders so that others don't have too many consecutive posts. They often work at cross purposes to each other though.
Edit: EE - Tailpipe guy deleting his posts again. So now I've got three consecutive.
But shadow doesn't delete his posts. Which interferes with EE deleting his.
Plus EE often 'discusses' the actual forum subject - which shadow almost never does so that interferes with shadow. They interfere with each other.

Maybe I've been ignoring power9 too much.
So power - you're talking about Laurence J. Peter?
-----------------------
I haven't read his book.
Care to comment further about it?

A very important philosopher.

Relatively recent too.
Maybe he gets into the 'inefficiency' of chess.

theres s/t at the CES abt solving chess. its way past his threads nonsense.

Everybody is doing the right thing, in their own eyes.

Is you are talking about stuff like this, then just be aware that teaching engines to try a new path via AI, which is based on human derived data, has a soft cap on advancement...that is, it only shows engines how to think like human beings, but execute perfectly. It might help in a minor way to help see very, very narrow things that humans still see better than engines, but that boost pales in comparison to introducing any human opinions about playing the best chess in general which just taints the engine with preconceived notions of centuries that it figured out how to beat in 4 hours without human input.

The whole point of Alpha Zero was that it was "trained" in 4 hours with no "seeding" whatsoever. That's why GMs were agog at some of the things it did. AI is actually a step backwards in this case, ultimately.

Peter wasn't a philosopher at all. He was a sociologist and educationalist.

Who is an important philosopher then?

It just means that good play by both sides leads to a draw, where good moves are those that don't get into a losing position. bingcht isn't great.