By "reality" I really mean external reality. The mind - reason - is also a part of reality, but it is internal and intangible, so we usually don't consider it part... still, technically it is. But no one would suggest reason is useless. It guides your interpretations, and motivates how you navigate the environment. But for it to be useful, to have meaning, it has to be wedded with something out there in reality. In this case, the actual game.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
4 hrs ago
0
#21606
Optimissed wrote:
Even so, if such a thing were to exist here, which is highly unlikely, no mention should be made of it, since it would cause offence to others. In particular, correct etiquette has it that the word "cabal" must never be mentioned. Remember that whenever accusations are made, the same accusations will be directed back at you; and quite rightly. Therefore it's best to never mention anything like that and stick to topic. Naturally, the moderators would take correct action if such a thing were to occur.
'if such a thing were to exist here' ... and then 'no mention should be made of it' ...
that suggests that if it does not exist here then its OK to mention it.
What I've been mentioning lately is a particular person (without naming him) and (not I and not you Roger) trying to make 'rules of engagement' for everyone ... his rules.
But that could get 'infectious'.
'Gatekeeping' behaviour is a nasty thing on the internet that tries to restrict who should or can speak their mind - with a further and divisive 'the cogent people versus the crackpots' and 'us verus them' attitude.
Quote from the internet:
"The healthiest move is to refuse that frame entirely and engage on your own terms"
And I'm adding from me - 'and define for oneself what 'engage' means in the context and whether and how to post with or without 'engaging'.
In other words the reverse of trying to define other people's 'rules of engagement'.
4 hrs ago
0
#21607
mpaetz wrote:
And chess still hasn't been solved!
That's right. And its good for the game.
A partial solution for checkers seems to have hurt that game somewhat ...
This is way over my head!
1 hr ago
0
#21610
JacobLimon_5 wrote:
This is way over my head!
Its over everybody's head.
Because chess is not solved.
7 min ago
0
#21611
crazedrat1000 wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
It would be a perfect data game but not a perfect information one, as optimised pointed out earlier. It’s not complicated, tbh. Game theory is a model and models are incomplete, they have yet to make distinctions such as these to my knowledge, but if they were to do so they’d be capable of modeling some games more fully.
...and now it's 3 navel-gazers telling everyone that game theory isn't a valid field of study. All 3 of them without a single applicable credential to their name.
Actually, no one here has suggested that. What people have suggested is that game theory is intended to model games as they're played in reality, but that this effort is incomplete. And that is just obviously the case, reality is much broader than game theory, and if we weren't generalizing the model to reality, there would be no point of the model. So the effort to advance game theory would involve progressively expanding the model. Which does not imply, as you said, that game theory is not a valid field of study. All rational disciplines are this way... math is the same way.
It's not hard to innovate a field, you just identify some limitations of how they currently do things and you expand on it. It's what any PHD student does.
TBH, I am a bit shocked that people here consider this a controversial claim, it isn't. Even though I've been shocked before by the same thing, maybe I shouldn't be, but it does shock me every time.
CR is correct. Somebody (not I not CR) strawmanning about 'not a valid field of study' and also that person trolling as usual with a pejorative noun and then complains when he's criticized.
It would be a perfect data game but not a perfect information one, as optimised pointed out earlier. It’s not complicated, tbh. Game theory is a model and models are incomplete, they have yet to make distinctions such as these to my knowledge, but if they were to do so they’d be capable of modeling some games more fully.
...and now it's 3 navel-gazers telling everyone that game theory isn't a valid field of study. All 3 of them without a single applicable credential to their name.
Actually, no one here has suggested that. What people have suggested is that game theory is intended to model games as they're played in reality, but that this effort is incomplete. And that is just obviously the case, reality is much broader than game theory, and if we weren't generalizing the model to reality, there would be no point of the model. So the effort to advance game theory would involve progressively expanding the model. Which does not imply, as you said, that game theory is not a valid field of study. All rational disciplines are this way... math is the same way.
It's not hard to innovate a field, you just identify some limitations of how they currently do things and you expand on it. It's what any PHD student does.
TBH, I am a bit shocked that people here consider this a controversial claim, it isn't. Even though I've been shocked before by the same thing, maybe I shouldn't be, but it does shock me every time.