Nope. Even in Star Trek, Spock had to program the computer. And in Star Trek, thay had "teleporters". ("Scotty, beam me up!" -James Kirk) And even then, the computers didn't come with good 3-D chess software! It didn't even come with awful 3-D chess software! Spock had to program it all himself! Poor Spock. He just wants to play a little chess without working.

Also if you wanted to argue that ONCE we have chess "solved" we know 100% that we are correct, that would also be false, because we can never be 100% sure about anything including the laws of physics and the universe, all human knowledge is based purely on observation and analysis of an almost negligible sample of the entire universe, in a very small sample of time, and filtered through our own limited model of reality.

We are talking about verifying all the possible variations. We are not questioning the game of chess itself. We have a game, we have a limited number of rules, we want to solve it. If some super-computer could do that ( unlikely ), then it would be solved. Case closed.

It’s like the perception of color, which technically doesn’t exist, but because most of us can see colors, we go with that. It’s part of our perception system. Case closed.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

One keeps missing the point: what we don’t know trumps what we know by a very, very, very, very long shot. Less than 0.0001% of the total number of possible games have been played, and in the games that were played an even smaller number of variations have been analyzed, from move one.

One’s ‘proof’ could be refuted a zillion times by future analysis. It doesn’t take much logic to see this.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

Never. I stand firm. Unless this can be brought to life.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

That’s not what he claims. He claimed he knows the result of a perfect game. We are simply saying we don’t know what a perfect game is.

And unimaginably long list of moves, yes. But literally infinite? No.

Wrong, I'm afraid. A game of chess could be infinitely long. Not really sure why you think it couldn't be.

Because of the three move repeat rule. There’s no conceivable way the game doesn’t eventually end. Even if players are avoiding checkmate there’s a finite amount of positions (albeit an extraordinarily large amount), and eventual you have to repeat, checkmate, or choose a position that is drawn by rule.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

For sure chess remains unsolved.

I know the result of a perfect game. [perfect game is a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game]

To show you the evidence that the result of a perfect game is a draw would take many pages of evidence and this is discussed in another forum.

However the evidence is overwhelming that the result of a perfect game is a draw.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

For sure chess remains unsolved.

I know the result of a perfect game. [perfect game is a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game]

To show you the evidence that the result of a perfect game is a draw would take many pages of evidence and this is discussed in another forum.

However the evidence is overwhelming that the result of a perfect game is a draw.

You don’t KNOW the results of a perfect game because you don’t know if a perfect game has ever been played.

You posted games before CLAIMING to know they were perfect games. When asked “how do you know they’re perfect” you gave the non-answer “from my experience.”

You: “perfect game is a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game”

Play ANY human verses Stockfish or Komodo (configured most powerful settings, on the most powerful system). The human loses EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Question: How does the human lose every game if there are ANY games “where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game”?

Nope. Even in Star Trek, Spock had to program the computer. And in Star Trek, thay had "teleporters". ("Scotty, beam me up!" -James Kirk) And even then, the computers didn't come with good 3-D chess software! It didn't even come with awful 3-D chess software! Spock had to program it all himself! Poor Spock. He just wants to play a little chess without working.

Oh, right. He's OK with programming the computer.

Also if you wanted to argue that ONCE we have chess "solved" we know 100% that we are correct, that would also be false, because we can never be 100% sure about anything including the laws of physics and the universe, all human knowledge is based purely on observation and analysis of an almost negligible sample of the entire universe, in a very small sample of time, and filtered through our own limited model of reality.

We are talking about verifying all the possible variations. We are not questioning the game of chess itself. We have a game, we have a limited number of rules, we want to solve it. If some super-computer could do that ( unlikely ), then it would be solved. Case closed.

It’s like the perception of color, which technically doesn’t exist, but because most of us can see colors, we go with that. It’s part of our perception system. Case closed.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

One keeps missing the point:

what we don’t know trumps what we know by a very, very, very, very long shot. Less than 0.0001% of the total number of possible games have been played, and in the games that were played an even smaller number of variations have been analyzed, from move one.One’s ‘proof’ could be refuted a zillion times by future analysis.It doesn’t take much logic to see this.Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

Never. I stand firm. Unless this can be brought to life.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

I agree with that. If there is a proof that a perfect game of chess ends in a particular way they should show us where it is. Otherwise, chess remains unsolved.

That’s not what he claims. He claimed he knows the result of a perfect game. We are simply saying we don’t know what a perfect game is.

And unimaginably long list of moves, yes. But literally infinite? No.

Wrong, I'm afraid. A game of chess could be infinitely long. Not really sure why you think it couldn't be.

Because of the three move repeat rule. There’s no conceivable way the game doesn’t eventually end. Even if players are avoiding checkmate there’s a finite amount of positions (albeit an extraordinarily large amount), and eventual you have to repeat, checkmate, or choose a position that is drawn by rule.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

For sure chess remains unsolved.

I know the result of a perfect game. [perfect game is a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game]

To show you the evidence that the result of a perfect game is a draw would take many pages of evidence and this is discussed in another forum.

However the evidence is overwhelming that the result of a perfect game is a draw.

Because the proof of something is not stated here does not mean there is no proof.

For sure chess remains unsolved.

I know the result of a perfect game. [perfect game is a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game]

To show you the evidence that the result of a perfect game is a draw would take many pages of evidence and this is discussed in another forum.

However the evidence is overwhelming that the result of a perfect game is a draw.

You don’t KNOW the results of a perfect game because you don’t know if a perfect game has ever been played.

You posted games before CLAIMING to know they were perfect games. When asked “how do you know they’re perfect” you gave the non-answer “from my experience.”

You: “perfect game is a game where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game”

Play ANY human verses Stockfish or Komodo (configured most powerful settings, on the most powerful system). The human loses EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Question: How does the human lose every game if there are ANY games “where there are no errors which would change the theoretical result of the game”?