Chess will never be solved, here's why

sad

"love" "sad" something's not right...

Google: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

My view is that you belong in that group before I do.

Second time spamming, second report.

lol

"that group" You guys saying I'm annoying is rich, look at yourselves!

Optimal, optimum ..... generally speaking, the best fit. If you wanted to buy a pair of shoes that were hardwearing, stylish, fitted you perfectly and were cheap, you would have to prioritise your requirements and buy a pair that seemed to tick as many of the boxes as much as possible. The choice would be limited by what you could afford and your location. In order to get the optimum pair of shoes for you, you might have to compromise on, say, cheapness or whether they are hard wearing or stylish. I'm not sure if they are synonyms or not. Optimal seems to carry a hint of approximation to the optimum, which is actually an ideal, so yes, I think optimal isn't an ideal but more "there or thereabouts".

I don't like to put people into groups. You are uniquely annoying in your own right and should be afforded recognition for it.

You're welcome.

Actually, correction. Optimal is strictly speaking the adjective from the noun optimum. But I think that supports the difference I suggested, since using the word as an adjective weakens it, as always.

I once worked on a TV show--she was a panelist judging who had talent. I wondered what there might be hanging in the air three feet in front of her that absorbed her attention so completely that the other panelists needed to keep reminding her when it was her turn to talk and recapping what they had just seen.

The context is ... reality.
The subjective exists. Desire. The drive to survive. To protect one's family. Emotions. Even in common everyday life the subjective is an enormous 'set'.
Subjective 'perception' is a subset.
Some relevant factors: Evidence.
If you compare the subjective with mathematical constructs -
such constructs have no stronger basis for actual existence than subjectives do.
If one were to look through the universe could you find anything that is purely 'two'?
How about pi?
Degrees of reality: the physically concrete is primary.
Numbers can describe but are secondary. And there's the ethereal. Things like 'reverse time travel'.
Point: Numbers don't 'win' over subjectives as far as existence is concerned.
Unless you want it that way. That's where 'arbitration of perception' comes in.
Apparently Kant wanted to do that. But couldn't.

I wasn't asking. I was saying my comments were in the context of solving chess, where subjective opinions carry no weight in the actual solving of the game.

You weren't asking.
But I'm saying.
This isn't the main forum for 'luck in chess' but I'm also saying 'luck in chess' is relevant here too.

Looks like someone's got a gold necklace 'under the Hood' ...
Or some kind of fancy zipper?

It's silver, white gold or platinum, but I think silver.

If you actually apply psychoananalysis to Kant's primary dictum, you might decide that he was very emotionally unhealthy. He was allowed to spread that unhealthiness to many others, especially in Germany but also wherever his intellect was revered, by his Argument from Duty.

Kant preached that no person was morally sound when their motivation for action came from their inclination, rather than from duty. He didn't take account of the fact that many people are so attuned to a sense of charity that they might never connect their charitable actions, or actions which are helpful to others rather than primarily to the self, with any sense of duty to act so generously. So he devalued "fellow-feeling" on what might be thought to be a psychopathic scale.

Chess will be solved by the end of 2028.