Chess will never be solved, here's why

Do you know why books get banned?

Neuroscience definitely is a problem (indefinite article).

It's an invented discipline which doesn't have much right to exist, since it can only produce pseudo-experts .... people who know a little bit of biology, a little bit of psychiatry, a smidgen of philosophy etc. Would you let someone, who has a degree in neuroscience, perform brain surgery on you? Would you let Sam Harris, who has a degree in neuroscience, think for you?

I read a book from the library about the political battle surrounding education. I have to say that the arguments being employed by some on both sides are pretty alarming. This is one area where people are appealing to coercion and force a lot more than I'm comfortable with. People aren't crafting good arguments about things, but just threatening to take over school board meetings to implement their personal agenda more than anything.

Like Teresa May was saying: "we cannot outsource our conscience to Kremlin" I say: you don't want to outsource your consciousness to Sam Harris either

One in particular, wish I could share it verbatim. Book banners, what do they think, that a book has the power to determine a child's thinking? Of course it doesn't, says the author. Book banners are afraid of books because they think books can actually influence a child's thinking, which book liberals apparently don't believe. Let every book (they approve) into the school library, because it's not actually going to determine anyone's thinking anyway.

I found that argument to be pretty weak. Obviously book liberals do think books are effective in shaping beliefs and opinions, or they wouldn't be so zealous in publishing their agendas and perspectives. They want to control what information people have access to as much as anyone does, and it really comes down to whose propaganda and whose control over the instruments of coercion are more effective. Both sides of the political spectrum are really showing themselves to be totalitarian in this respect. They want to control the books in school, because they know that is the time when kids really do accept everything they hear as truth. When there is a department of education, whoever controls it controls the people. (and a department of health, and a department of science, and a department of finance, etc.)

Our local chess club has more or less been taken over by a pair of people who are not locals and who seem to be doing it as much as anything for personal profit. They're doing a good job in resurrecting infrastructure but they are very odd and maybe laughable in the way they try to reinforce their personal power. Previously we were led by the twin powers of friendly persuasion and good leadership. It has happened while I was away from the club for a couple of years and it dwindled to nothing .... or I wouldn't have allowed it to happen. I've just been in our local library today, where an alternative chess group has been started: and removed a bunch of leaflets promoting the "taken over club". I'm due to play in a league match on Thursday for the "take-overs" but I'm not going to allow them to attract people away from the new group, so I had a word with the library staff about it and they agree with me. I'm happy that the club has been restarted but the authoritarianism they try to use is laughable. They set up a committee and they pretend it means they have authority over members. It's taken a bit of effort to counter and I think what we're going to do is to try to turn the library group into a proper club, in the fullness of time. Hence the other group will not be allowed to try to poach members. They seem to be trying to do that to other clubs too, as much as ten miles away. I can imagine them having a club with 100 members but none of the local clubs have enough members to field a team. I suppose I should come out with my usual criticism of "they aren't very bright".

Nothing wrong with the original question which led the author Chbosky to write Wallflower: "why good people let themselves get treated so badly? " And Common Sense Media's Kate Pavao praised its relevant themes for teenager

The OP answers his or her own chess question:

1) As a meaningless sequence of algorithms, the solutions are infinite. It will never be solved.

2) As a competitive sport where one side must win? It has already been solved

Montaigne 's Essays were banned for 2 centuries. Nietzsche was a big fan

"Nietzsche's reading of Montaigne's Essays helped him move away from a condemnatory view of the world and develop his own philosophy. "

Banned by whom? I can tell that your proposal isn't meant to be taken seriously, but it raises the question about banned articles generally. Who are they banned by, and who are they banned for, how is that ban going to be enforced, and are the ban and its enforcement going to be just? In your proposal, who is it that possesses the moral and practical authority to actualize a ban on those reading materials they deem injurious to the public?

Your outlook is truly bereft. No qualifiers needed.

You seem to operate by making off the cuff statements (usually complaints about the world, there seems to be little else), then when you feel you're getting attention, toss in some pure trolling like this post above to (1) garner more attention, and (2) to try to bring other people down because you are not satisfied with things as they sit. I believe your degree should help you with some terms for labeling this behavior.

Great idea! Nothing that makes anyone uncomfortable should ever be made public. News media should refrain from reporting about crime and war. Warnings about hurricanes or wildfires shouldn't be allowed--it would make people living in the paths of these disasters nervous. Let's all ignore the truth and reality and wait for our fairy godmothers to rain down peace and prosperity on all of us. We don't want to be so concerned about problems that we actually try to solve them.

Common sense, isn't. It's a term used by people who have no actual support for their positions.

Philosophy is really only about understanding thought itself. Questions about the meaning of life are a load of crapola. Questions about what we might do with our lives are more important.

I don't know what an OCD person is.

Oh, obsessive-compulsive disorder. People who have that condition are more likely to know what OCD stands for than those who don't.

This new contact I have has multiple bottles of 24 year old and 23 year old malt whisky from a famous distillery that closed down. Things distilled in 1975 and 82. He asked me to value them and find a way to get rid of them.

That's a bit like prosperity raining down. As a rule it doesn't rain down on all of us at the same time.

Yes - EE trolls intensely and I noticed recently that he has resumed his practice of deleting his posts which leaves the posts of others isolated. Resumed it here - because he is blocked in another forum he wishes to lower.
And he knows there is no opening poster here to block him for doing so.
And yes no surprise that he would favor banning philosphy books.
Since he is unable to benefit from philosohpy.
He would want its discussion here shut down if he could but would settle for trying to demote the discussion by inserting his gross illogic.
Even the shadow guy (reluctantly) is disagreeing with EE.

This was mostly a good post.
And informative. I read through it carefully.
First:
Announcement: the World War II forum on the site was locked by the moderators a few hours ago -
so for those who prefer this forum continues I suggest be careful about that subject here -
because those wanting this forum locked will try to exploit mention of it.
When you want something - you often have to fight for it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This forum heavily relates to the 'is there luck in chesss' forum.
Suggestion: Nobody really cares about whether chess is 'solved' or not - nor whether there's 'luck in it' but there's variations on how one might define 'luck' or 'in' or chess itself or how one might apply meanings in the various contextes.
For example 'chess' could refer to a mathematical construct of rules - or it could refer to people playing a game.
----------------------
But do people care about conflicts and about philosophy?
The short answer is yes. And that manifests constantly everywhere.
----------------------------------------
@Optimissed
Wittgenstein beat his students? That's remarkable - but 'fits'.
Also noting that my observation about Kant seems to fit with what you're saying too.
Another point about Kant is that he would be a Gigantic Turn Off to anybody wishing to make a short general study of the timeline and development of philosophy as a field.
Does every field have a Bete Noire or similiar? Probably.
But there's philosophy as a formal field or as a general field or as an individual's positions for himself/herself or view of the world.
You and I probably wouldn't get anywhere at all or go backwards discussing philosophy directly.
But discussing the history of philosophy and famous people in it is different.
That's a different discussion.
Does it connect to the forum subject? Sure it does. And in more ways than one.
--------------------------------
Regarding the fact that others were already aware that 'people rise to their level of incompetence' was known about long before Lawrence J. Peter ... well I would expect so and you probably know many of the details on that.
But then the issue would be - how did that person become famous for stating that principle?
Perhaps in a similiar way that Pareto became famous for his 80-20 Pareto principle and his work in 'optimality' and Nash became famous for Nash equilibrium.
Point: The strong parallel between Pareto 'optimality' and 'Nash equilibrium'.
Point: Zermelo in between them on the timeline.
With Zermelo's strong contributions to Set theory and Game theory with the game of Chess bang in the middle of Zermelo's work.
Point: How the timeline progressed.
With mathematical abstractions being more and more both being applied to and being found to operate in real life.
----------------------------
EE will try to demote the discussion of philosophy as much as he can probably -
but others can and are posting around him. Or using him as a foil.
Something like tygxc was used.
I took a year off this forum because what was the point of seeing his 2+2=5 positions constantly being refuted?
---------------------------------
Issue: when people discuss a behaviour or the study of a behaviour -
they also get the behaviour itself.
If philosophy is discussed - then people will also assert or operate their individual philosophy.
Takes many forms but that's where it can get out of hand.

Philosophy could be added to EE's long list of phobias.
He is afraid of asteroids.
Weathermen.
Speed limits.
And other things.
----------------------
EE has admitted on prior occasions publically that he 'might have bipolar' and is on Lexapro prescription medication. And that he doesn't expect to reach 35.
If he doesn't want such things mentioned then why does he announce them publically?
Now he's saying he's got OCD too.
EE seems to have suggested that since he is afraid of asteroids that others should be afraid of them too.
He is suggesting that since he personally doesn't like philosophy that it should be book-banned.
It looks like a 'center of the universe' defense mechanism.
How could anybody operate on such a basis or even try to and not have Severe problems?
--------------------------
But we get to discuss the forum subject here which connects heavily to what the website is all about.
The game of chess.
And chess connects to many other subjects.