It's a case of heightening awareness. This has always been Dio's watchword. He believed he's the guardian of truth and justice. Consequently, it seems unfair of him to want to hog all the truth and justice for himself. Since he's so bad at it, it seems only fair for others to have a go. For instance, Dio's Covid thread where anyone disagreeing with him was systematically trolled and then blocked, so there was no-one to counter his false claims.
Is Chess Something We Can Solve?
Sort:
Jun 24, 2024
0
#103
Optimissed wrote:
Ten years ago I wasn't believed by the majority. Only a sizeable minority regarded Dio, Elroch etc as trolls and general undesireables. Now I'm believed. Hence Dio's desperation.
Do tell us who this majority who believes you is. I didn't notice him.
Jun 24, 2024
0
#104
Optimissed wrote:
All Elroch is trying to do is to validate his extreme bad manners towards someone who has made a few mistakes. I would be digging my heels in too if I'd suffered what tygxc has suffered.
There's no need to tell us that when you are wrong and you are told that you are wrong, you "dig your heels in" and repeat the mistake. We have seen examples recently.
You need to learn that this is not something to be proud of (or at least it is not to those who are interested in what is true rather than trying to get ego points). It's a bit like "because you told me not to bang my head against the wall I am not going to stop. That shows you!"
Optimissed wrote:
It's a case of heightening awareness. This has always been Dio's watchword. He believed he's the guardian of truth and justice. Consequently, it seems unfair of him to want to hog all the truth and justice for himself. Since he's so bad at it, it seems only fair for others to have a go. For instance, Dio's Covid thread where anyone disagreeing with him was systematically trolled and then blocked, so there was no-one to counter his false claims.
People are free to read the Covid thread and see how each troll is blocked and why. Your blathering is incoherent, but that's not exactly new.
llama_l wrote:
It's weird to me how people immediately ignored the OP's question, and the OP didn't mind.
Reading the OP closely, it's kind of interesting. The (I assume kid) thinks chess is a game of tricks, where humans win by tricking their opponent into blundering, and "AI" wins by creating probability distributions for how a human will react against each possible "feint." Meaning moves have no objective strength, each move has a trickyness value and computers are better at predicting how their opponent will respond to the trickiness of each move... the OP currently views chess the way players 100s of years ago did. OP is in the romantic era. Isn't that interesting?
Even more than that, OP is on the verge of forming chess principles the way early players like Steinitz did. OP has realized that there may be a way to "make certain moves in certain situations" to win instead of trying to trick the opponent... given some time OP may come up with ideas like development and castling and the center... it's pretty interesting... much more so than that moronic tygxc stuff on repeat.
That;s pretty much what chess is. The object is to get your opponent to blunder.
AI wins by being tactically good though.
If you look through some of the "how can I" threads tygxc is pretty consistently helpful. Most of his suggestions to newcomers to chess are pretty good. Why do you find it necessary to chime in with more attacks on tygxc, Llama? I don't get it because what we have is a long-standing discussion between tygxc and Elroch where the latter has made his share of errors. It's only his loyal band of followers who try to deflect from that fact. Elroch is sold on some crazy idea that chess can be represented mathematically even though it's been stated to be impossible by better mathematicians than Elroch, simply because of his faith in and misunderstanding of the highly simplistic Zermello's Theorem.
Optimissed wrote:
That;s pretty much what chess is. The object is to get your opponent to blunder.
AI wins by being tactically good though.
If you look through some of the "how can I" threads tygxc is pretty consistently helpful. Most of his suggestions to newcomers to chess are pretty good. Why do you find it necessary to chime in with more attacks on tygxc, Llama? I don't get it because what we have is a long-standing discussion between tygxc and Elroch where the latter has made his share of errors. It's only his loyal band of followers who try to deflect from that fact. Elroch is sold on some crazy idea that chess can be represented mathematically even though it's been stated to be impossible by better mathematicians than Elroch, simply because of his faith in and misunderstanding of the highly simplistic Zermello's Theorem.
I think Zermello's Theorem is highly simplistic as well...Zermelo's Theorem on the other hand...
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@1
"a better, more intuitive way of playing that will always lead to an inevitable win."
++ No, only a better way that will always lead to an inevitable draw.
"If both players both mastered it, who would win?" ++ It would be a draw. Look here:
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=100104 White has the initiative, an advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn, not enough to win and each further move dilutes the advantage.
here we see some example's of tygxc's lack of understanding of mathematical proof.
A numerical evaluation by an imperfect engine is entirely meaningless. tygxc pretends that it is rigorous. when asked for logical justification tygxc responds with "oh it's common chess knowledge" and then quotes a bunch of guys out of context who say chess is a draw.
You are extremely confused, Mega. I know you're absolutely sold on Elroch's obsession with deduction and rejection of heuristics but still the evidence is that chess is a draw with best play. If some weird win exists it will exist in a 2020 move game after 1. a4 or something, making single pawn moves, keeping the pieces on and winning by zugzwang on move 1304.
Anyway, "tygxc saying that chess is a draw" and Elroch pretending that there's a mathematical proof of it somewhere (there isn't) which isn't heuristic, doesn't translate into "tygxc is wrong that chess is a draw". It does tranlate into "Mega is a first year maths student who doesn't know what he's talking about". Your slip's showing.
Optimissed wrote:
You are extremely confused, Mega. I know you're absolutely sold on Elroch's obsession with deduction and rejection of heuristics but still the evidence is that chess is a craw with best play. If some weird win exists it will exist in a 2020 move game after 1. a4 or something, making singlr pawn moves, keeping the pieces on and winning by zugzwang on move 1304.
Anyway, "tygxc saying that chess is a draw" and Elroch pretending that there's a mathematical proof of it somewhere (there isn't) which isn't heuristic, doesn't translate into "tygxc is wrong that chess is a draw". It does tranlate into "Mega is a first year maths student who doesn't know what he's talking about". Your slip's showing.
"Chess is a craw with best play" -Optimissed
Hi Mr Sadd.
Supersadhamster Stikes Again!!!
I burned my fingers. I'm making typos. 
You ARE a living typo. That's different, mr SSH. All the best. Bedtime for me.
llama_l wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Your slip's showing.
My wife's just come to take me away. Have to be another time.
llama_l wrote:
It was fun untangling the OP's meandering writing. Optimissed's and Tygxc's, not so much.
That's because I disagree with you Llama.
llama_l wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I burned my fingers. I'm making typos.
I don't understand the connection.
"I bumped my toe, so now I put on shoes that don't match."
I'm typing by using my fingers. I'm not doing voice typing.
Oh I know it's very difficult for you. It's why you fit in best with the trolls. They're so forgiving.
Optimissed wrote:
llama_l wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Your slip's showing.
Supersadhamster Stikes Again!!!
[and]
My wife's just come to take me away. Have to be another time.
Somebody needs to, though it would be better if it were someone official who won't let you wander.
@135
"Elroch (like all of us) believes chess is probably a draw."
++ 112 draws out of 112 games in the ongoing WC33/final, World Championship 33 Final is solid evidence, together with the initiative being a white advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn = not enough to win and diluted by each further move.
The 10^17 positions considered and 6120 CPU years spent is more than
the 10^14 positions and 50*2 = 100 CPU years Schaeffer spent to weakly solve Checkers.
Jun 24, 2024
0
#119
tygxc wrote:
@135
"Elroch (like all of us) believes chess is probably a draw."
++ 112 draws out of 112 games in the ongoing WC33/final, World Championship 33 Final is solid evidence, together with the initiative being a white advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn = not enough to win and diluted by each further move.
The 10^17 positions considered and 6120 CPU years spent is more than
the 10^14 positions and 50*2 = 100 CPU years Schaeffer spent to weakly solve Checkers.
Games relying crucially on an engine that, without a large enough table base, blunders in 6 and 7 piece table base positions. Thus not 100% reliable before the table base position.
And chess is about 10^24 times as complex as checkers.
Jun 25, 2024
0
#120
tygxc trying to argue to an effect that chess engines reaching a tablebase position 'proves' something?
Human players reach book draws and wins constantly.
And book checkmates too. And 'non-book' checkmates.
Does not connect to 'solving' chess.
tygxc has no argument there.
Nobody seems to be buying his sales pitch there.
But he does have a 'talking points pitch'.
He can sell 'conversation' about his idea.
When he drops that one - he can work his way around - and return to it x months later. Over and over.
In theory he could keep repeating that and his other sales pitches decade in - decade out. With Optimissed 'in tow' behind him. O is his 'boy' but doesn't know it.
Ten years ago I wasn't believed by the majority. Only a sizeable minority regarded Dio, Elroch etc as trolls and general undesireables. Now I'm believed. Hence Dio's desperation.
Another facet of your delusions. You keep believing the birdies whispering in your ear.