You could make a program like that. So what? No one gave an argument why the possibility of making such a program like that actually contradicts Deutsch. Such a program wouldn't be creating knowledge as it played (in Deutsch's terminology), it'd be doing some pretty trivial math (the hard part being the memory and speed for dealing with all the data), so it can't be an example of the unpredictability of knowledge creation in Deutsch's sense.

My initial point was merely that a statement was false. I think that's important. We should try to correct our mistakes, starting with the ones we see first, and then after correcting them we might find more.

I saw. That's no reason not to do the same with others. It doesn't change that you imagined a convenient world where i'm bad at chess in order to dispute the specific details of an argument i made which had a substantive point that could still be made using other details. It doesn't change that you misread my position in the stuff about authors. And so on.