Zermelo’s theorem is based on players.
Obvious things such as the finite permutations of a chess game go without saying. Nobody would found a theorem on the obvious. It is not a theorem in that case.
No, it isn’t based on players, it’s based on abstract finite two-players games in game theory.
Name a player where this would prove solvable.
Your question makes no sense. We are talking about mathematics which is abstract.
I’m reducing your position to absurdity, it’s legitimate if it can be done. I’ve done it.
Sure, go ahead and try.
Examples:
Can a boat sail forever in a straight line?
Can a Chess game be played forever?
Can a concert last forever?
Each of these examples would involve a cosmos reaching heat death. Special physics would need to be invoked.
Specifically with a chess game played sensibly, the permutations are 10^40. It is therefore self-consigned to oblivion. Any player would have crumbled away, the board would have crumbled away, the universe would have reached heat death too. You’d have defined the situation as absurd.
Like it or not, this theorem involves players - be they computers or people.
No, the longest possible chess game is 8849 and a half moves according to AI. Which I already mentioned above.
Sorry what i meant was: Infinite games
I think l meant: can chess have infinite permutations of games?
Even with the bounds of the 50 rule
No, the OP is most definitely not talking about the Human possibilities of chess understanding. It’s not about if a human can solve chess at all.
I don’t understand what you’re asking. There is a finite amount of possible chess games. Even if we would drop the 75 moves rule, there would still be a finite amount of possible chess positions, each of them either drawn or winning for white or winning for black.
No actual chess game has to be played, we are still talking about it in principle. Mathematics is abstract.
Yes, you’ve understood the topic. I think Mr Cat is off course a bit.
So name a player. I know it sounds rinky dink of an argument but absurd is absurd. For game theory to have meaning it should not cross into the absurd, surely?
Name a player? What does that question even mean? I don’t know what you’re saying.
Give an example of this theory being possible in terms of an actual game. For example a supercomputer made of titanium, superconducting etc.
This kind of question can only be asked by someone who has gone so far off course from what Zermelo’s Theorem is talking about that they need a full reset. It’s not remotely a contextually relevant question to ask. I’m not even sure the question makes sense, nevermind being on topic.
Prove what you have just said. Ad hominems do not validate your argument.
I just don’t think you understand what the conversation is about man. You’re saying things that are not relevant.
For example Nine mens morris was solved in the early nineties. It has about 10 billion possible positions, and you can play against perfect computers, even though no human has ever played say 99% of the possible positions.
SO WHAT?