Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck"

On Apr 17, 10:16 am, David Richerby <dav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> <richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > My take on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is that you don't solve the
> > systemic issues with a certain set of rules by creating more rules
> > of the same type.
>
> My take on Goedel's incompleteness theorems is that almost all
> invocations of them are made by people who are ignorant of what they
> mean.  For the record, they refer to the use of systems of deduction
> to reason about themselves.  Since chess is not a system of deduction,
> incompleteness is totally irrelevant.
>
> Dave.

You mean individuals like Steven Hawkings and Freeman John Dyson don't
know a thing about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#With_reference_to_G.C3.B6d=
el.27s_incompleteness_theorem

Freeman Dyson:
=93 	G=F6del=92s theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible.
No
matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems
that cannot be solved within the existing rules. [...] Because of
G=F6del's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are
a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so
that G=F6del's theorem applies to them."

Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything
but, after considering G=F6del's Theorem, concluded that one was not
obtainable:
=93 	Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."

If one considers math to be the "language of everything" and rules
relate to math in this regard, and is the means by which a game
functions as a contained system, to say that, "No Godel's
Incompleteness Theorem has NOTHING to do with game rules in any way",
is to totally deny that math has anything to do with games, game
rules, etc...  It is a shallow conclusion used to shut up
conversation, rather than consider that maybe there is some overlap.

And to conclude on this is to totally ignore the issues involved with
chess itself, and whether or it can hit an ultimate state of being
solved or not.

- Rich