Zermelo's Theorem is simultaneously intuitive and odd

[TheIllustriousMrCat (Mr Cat)]

Please make the next reply an answer to my q

[TheIllustriousMrCat (Mr Cat)]

@Atla

Number of moves in what?

The game known as chess

So, please answer definitively ys or no:L

@TheIllustriousMrCat

Do you or don’t you agree that the no of moves is potemntially calculabl;e?

[Atla]

@TheIllustriousMrCat

The game known as chess

You mean every possible move in every possible position? If that’s what you mean then sure, that’s finite therefore calculable in principle.

[TheIllustriousMrCat (Mr Cat)]

@TheIllustriousMrCat

Circa 10^40 sensible chess games

Do you have a problem with this value? Yes or no. @Atla

[Atla]

@TheIllustriousMrCat

Do you have a problem with this value? Yes or no. @Atla

No, if that’s the estimate for “sensible” chess games then fine.

[TheIllustriousMrCat (Mr Cat)]

Then i have shown, and you agree, that Chess is indeed solvable

[Atla]

You don’t need the number of “sensible” chess games for that.

[TheIllustriousMrCat (Mr Cat)]

i dodm’t say tjhjat i did.

The point is, i have presented it as solvable - valid in a pure sense
But unso;vable - because the above sense is absurd. It treats of players, and moves / so;lving (i.e. verbs) and inso;vabl;e (adjectiove rioght?), hence invokiong a degree of realoity, just as your assertion than entropy need not increase as game progresses, iomplies conscious manipu;lation against entropy;

In that sense the so;lvabiloty becomes absurd.

So yoiu shoui;d not have ad hommed me as a know-nothing, even nafter i ave remonstrated t hat i encompassed the problem completely in my responses.

You join flannel J as an insul;ter, a weak debater

Peace.

[Atla]

@TheIllustriousMrCat

i dodm’t say tjhjat i did.

The point is, i have presented it as solvable - valid in a pure sense
But unso;vable - because the above sense is absurd. It treats of players, and moves / so;lving (i.e. verbs) and inso;vabl;e (adjectiove rioght?), hence invokiong a degree of realoity, just as your assertion than entropy need not increase as game progresses, iomplies conscious manipu;lation;

In that sense the so;lvabiloty becomes absurd.

So yoiu shoui;d not have ad hommed me as a know-nothing, even nafter i ave remonstrated t hat i encompassed the problem completely in my responses.

You join flannel J as an insul;ter, a weak debater

Peace.

Again, you can’t tell the abstract mathematical apart from the physical. There is nothing absurd about mathematics since it’s abstract.

I’d say you are ad-homming actually, not able to face your own shortcoming.

[TheIllustriousMrCat (Mr Cat)]

I literally just showed you how i presented both the abstract and the real, and you even conceded that i did indeed show the abstract

And ypoi iomplicitly gave a nod to the real, my saying entropy need not increase , because ma conssiopus mnd may make a move siuch that entropy decreases.

"Yeah, but no, but yeah buit clarifocation misery clarification misery clarificatoin misery, no it’s you not me, bla bla bla. "

Disappointing.

[Atla]

You really have some kind of problem admitting when you’re wrong, and blaming the other person.

[Atla]

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if it turned out that black is in a 400 move zugzwang from the start against a certain white attack, and black always loses?

[ghatzige]

If you ask chess grandmasters, they will say that a perfect game leads to a draw.

Experience shows that if both players play conservatively from the start, there is no chance of winning. Someone has to do a risky move to change the odds.

I know that this is not mathematically proven, but I wouldn’t be surprised If one day someone proves it.