so you don't actually know what a "game" is in this context, splendid

you can't fucking talk about the computational solvability of a physical sport

Clearly you've forgotten what this post was about originally. What makes a sport. You brought up video games and chess. To me neither is a sport, but you opened the door.

That's an open question that serious researchers are spending serious money on. Why not do literally any research of your own before sperging on Reddit to White Knight Chess?

Good. Let me know if they solve it. Until then, you're claiming victory for something that's not even in the same realm. Hopscotch is unsolved too.

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion, but you've already made clear you di not understand the discussion.

You brought it up, genius. You specifically said in your first post it was more difficult.

The hardest game in the world could have no players at all. It's still equally analyzable. That's the point.

Analyzable =! Difficult.

Starcraft. Prove me wrong. You keep making this big, bold, I'm-right-and-thats-it claim, put up or shut up.

Is it easier to go pro on the NBA or NFL? You're making a numbers argument and you're wrong. More players=stiffer competition to reach the top. Logic is a thing.

Don't have to be a baker to know bread is stale.

Bad analogy. It's like being a gourmet food critic when you normally eat pizza rolls.

You don't know anything about chess, that's obvious. So go ahead and get the last word in if you want. But you'll still be wrong.