hex and kbnkn solved without computer?

[Daniel Shawul]

Somebody claims so and gives proof thousands of pages long. The latter makes me think the guy is serious and not just trollig.
Can somebody look at http://jeudhex.com/?page_id=17 to assess the seriousness/validity of atleast the kbnkn claim?
Btw this topic is currently being discussed in Go mailing list.

[syzygy]

Maybe I am just overlooking something, but I don't see a reference to KBNKN.

If he has a proof that is 1000s of pages long, it is practically guaranteed to be full of mistakes.

He also seems to think he has solved NP=P, a strong suggestion that this is a waste of time.

[Ajedrecista]

Hello Daniel:

Somebody claims so and gives proof thousands of pages long. The latter makes me think the guy is serious and not just trollig.
Can somebody look at http://jeudhex.com/?page_id=17 to assess the seriousness/validity of atleast the kbnkn claim?
Btw this topic is currently being discussed in Go mailing list.

I visited Go Mailing List and I only see this index and also this work. Someone pointed out that a mention to that was done two years ago on French Wikipedia... But I do not see anything about KBNkn endgame. Could you point where is it, please? Thanks in advance.

Probably the solution is for some special cases but who knows. One thing is sure: I am highly skeptical: the Wikipedia issue and nobody saying nothing about it for two years. But it is only my opinion, nothing more.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

[syzygy]

Maybe I am just overlooking something, but I don't see a reference to KBNKN.

Ah, he wrote it out in words:

Finally it will be noticed that the great number of analyses, carried out without the help of a computer, of chess game positions, opposing a bishop and a knight to a knight, has enabled us to finalize the method of analyse used in this study.

If analysing KBNKN helped him to solve hex, that is just another indication that his claims are bogus.

I don't think the actual KBNKN analysis is on the website.

[Daniel Shawul]

I haven't looked at the website carefully so my knowledge, like you, comes from following the go mailing discussion.
As long as he was serious in his attempt, maybe something can be learned from his approach even if it turned out to be wrong.

[syzygy]

I haven't looked at the website carefully so my knowledge, like you, comes from following the go mailing discussion.

My comments were all based on the website. That people on the go mailing list came to similar conclusions is unsurprising.

As long as he was serious in his attempt, maybe something can be learned from his approach even if it turned out to be wrong.

There are many "crackpots" in all areas of science. This seems to be one of them.