Optimissed wrote:
Hello dimwit.
Keep showing everyone exactly who you are.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
btickler wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
Quoting you here:
"If you cannot win a position against *any* opposition put forth, then you cannot claim you are "100% sure" it is a winning position"
This is why we cant have nice things, cos you lie.
No, you misinterpret.
I was talking to Optimissed, who steadfastly refuses to engage in any logical solutions, and just wants to claim certainty via his own "knowledge". Since he refuses to use other methods, or even to acknowledge the terminology then *in his case* he needs to prove his "I'm 100% sure" statement in the only manner left to him.
Take your "cos you lie" comment and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. By that I mean Finland, of course.
I misinterpret because I interpret the comment for what it actually states instead of reading your mind that it's not actually what you mean? It doesn't make any more sense with the context than it does in general. You were trying to get a point across to Optimissed with faulty logic, I'm not even judging whos in the right fundamentally.
Never seen anyone been so scared of being in the wrong on the internet. You get angry over it as well. For such a logical man you let your emotions get the best of you a little too much. We can leave it at that.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3444
tygxc wrote:
@4307
"First understand that a 32 piece tablebase is a strong solution, then understand that, as for checkers, a weak solution can be a lot smaller (just as for checkers)."
++ Very much indeed.
Oh dear, you do struggle.
If you understood that the 7 man tablebases are not a strong solutions of 7 man chess under FIDE competition rules as I explained in numerous posts (the last being #4288 which you didn't any rate attempt to contradict) then it's a rather small step to understand that a 32 man tablebase constructed along any of the same lines would also not be a strong solution of chess under FIDE competition rules.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3445
Optimissed wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
btickler wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
Nah, come on. You said that one cannot be 100% sure a position is winning unless they can beat stockfish in the position.
What I'm saying is that its possible to prove that a position is winning with other means than beating stockfish or any other robot in the position.
I'm sure we agree now that I laid it out like this, but your comment wasn't in line with it.
No, I agreed with Mar that it would be a start for Optimissed to make his point.
Robot is an inaccurate term here.
Quoting you here:
"If you cannot win a position against *any* opposition put forth, then you cannot claim you are "100% sure" it is a winning position"
This is why we cant have nice things, cos you lie.
Difficult to tell the difference between dishonesty and disability. I can be confident of winning a simple position like bishop up on move two and I really don't need to give every possible line to convince someone who isn't very bright that it's a win.
Against the latest Stockfish, I reckon you would be sunk as black after 1. e4 e5 Bh6. This is no insult: I'd estimate you need to be about IM standard at least for the piece to compensate adequately for the difference in standard. I would not be confident at daily time controls (and I am not bad at daily chess).
Consequently, your confidence in your personal ability to win this position is based crucially on the assumption that the opponent will play badly (i.e. not as well as it could).
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3446
Optimissed wrote:
But you fail to distinguish between being able to win against any possible line and giving the analysis for every possible line. They are completely different things and you are only showing your lack of an IQ by going on and on and on and on about it. You're the one making the wild assertions. I suppose after
1. d4 ....Nf6
2. Qh5
you'll claim that Carlsen et al would be wrong to claim that as a win for black too. If not that, where do you draw the line? Where is the miraculous point where btickler and Elroch can suddenly tell the difference between "we don't know" and "it's a loss"?
Of course the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Qh5 can't be proved to be a loss for white as it is impossible to reach under the rules of chess.
Then after repeating this nonsense a couple more times this poster claims that no one else here can keep up with his logic. Small wonder.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3447
Yet you repeated it without noticing. Not a great advertisement for your self-proclaimed superior intelligence and reasoning ability.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3448
Amazing how many times in different forums here my stock has plummeted in your eyes yet still seems to have a long way to go to reach bottom. Also interesting how everyone who fails to acknowledge your superiority thereby reveals themselves to be a troll, a feeble intellect, a hateful, bitter malcontent, or whatever other sort of low-life you think up.
Your difficulty seems to be that your overwhelming superiority in every area somehow fails to manifest itself clearly to everyone else. Perhaps you should "dumb down" your pronouncements so they will be more intelligible to the rest of us normal humans. And really, does a superior man such as yourself truly need to resort to insults and name-calling so often?
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3449
"I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member"--Groucho Marx
Kotshmot wrote:
I misinterpret because I interpret the comment for what it actually states instead of reading your mind that it's not actually what you mean? It doesn't make any more sense with the context than it does in general. You were trying to get a point across to Optimissed with faulty logic, I'm not even judging whos in the right fundamentally.
Never seen anyone been so scared of being in the wrong on the internet. You get angry over it as well. For such a logical man you let your emotions get the best of you a little too much. We can leave it at that.
Lol, why am I angry, or scared? Because I made a joke about Finland at your expense?
If you are reading strong emotions into my writings then you haven't been reading me for very long. Various trolls have attempted many, many times over the past decade to get me to "blow up" and go on some profanity-laced tirade, and it has never come anywhere close to happening.
Optimissed wrote:
I just don't think you would ever dare writing an original thought, even if you had one. I don't believe you would ever stick your neck out if you didn't think you had backing. The fact that Elroch isn't properly addressing the thread subject area doesn't concern you. You wouldn't even know he isn't. All Elroch is doing is showing off his idealistic mindset, which enjoys abstract ideas that cannot be brought to bear on the subject matter. At least he gets it right when he writes something, even if it's entirely inapplicable. You're just all over the place. Incoherent, basically.
Coming from you, a claim of incoherence is hollow.
@4311
"There are many positions where a player can be down a piece and not losing" ++ True
"saying that it's different because there's no compensation is not enough,
because it assumes you, or someone knows every type of compensation"
++ If there is any doubt, then calculate further or play on.
If there is no doubt, then end the calculation or resign.
There is no point in continuing a game after losing a piece, people resign over the board and in ICCF even more. For that same reason there is no point in calculating a whole tree with all possible ways to lose after blundering a piece.
I provided prove above that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82.
There is a clear difference between blundering a piece and sacrificing for some compensation.
Whether some compensation is enough or not is for the calculation to decide.
With no compensation of any kind, losing a piece or losing a pawn means losing by force.
Aug 27, 2022
0
#3453
tygxc wrote:
...
I provided prove above that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82.
...
But your "prove" is even worse than your grammar.
Claiming such a proof is simply dishonest. You don't believe it's valid any more than anybody else. You're just hoping if you provide no link to it people won't find it.
Aug 27, 2022
0
#3454
tygxc wrote:
@4311
"There are many positions where a player can be down a piece and not losing" ++ True
"saying that it's different because there's no compensation is not enough,
because it assumes you, or someone knows every type of compensation"
++ If there is any doubt, then calculate further or play on.
If there is no doubt, then end the calculation or resign.
There is no point in continuing a game after losing a piece, people resign over the board and in ICCF even more. For that same reason there is no point in calculating a whole tree with all possible ways to lose after blundering a piece.
People resign because they don't see a way they can win the position. That doesn't mean there isn't a way to win the position.
Aug 27, 2022
0
#3455
I thought that "prove" was a joke by someone jesting about @tygx's claims.
On a different matter, @Optimissed says that the test of the evaluation of a position is how two players of similar standard do from that position.
No. This often gives an indication of the correct evaluation, but it can also easily be that the position is two difficult for the players. Take a simple position - KBN v K - and you will find that two weaker players tend to draw it more than they get to a mate in 50 moves (and I am not talking about very weak here - this ending is difficult for club players of above average standard unless they have put in the effort to learn it). Some endings are so much more difficult that you need a very strong player to get the right result.
It is safe to say there are _much_ harder positions with more pieces on the board. Too hard for all humans.
@4337
"People resign because they don't see a way they can win the position."
++ Players resign when they have no hope at all of drawing a position.
Weak players might accidently resign in a position they can draw or even win.
Among strong players that does not happen.
Among ICCF correspondence players it does not happen at all.
They resign when a position is clearly lost.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a clearly lost position.
It is pointless to further analyse a clearly lost position.
Aug 27, 2022
0
#3457
Yes. Having no hope isn't the same as losing by force. I can be down a queen but have a forced mate in 20, if I don't see it then I'll just resign the game, because I have no hope of winning or drawing. Resigning the game doesn't mean it's lost by force.
Optimissed wrote:
You're an angry and scared person. I've always picked up on that and so do very many others. You talk about trolls but you don't realise WHO they are.
This is just a narrative you tell yourself to maintain your illusions. It allows you to fool yourself into thinking not only that you are smartest person in the room, but also the most enlightened, magnanimous, etc. It reeks out of everything you post, and it's a bit sad.
As for "very many others", that's a statement that is in line with your "hundreds and hundreds posters attacked" delusion.
Optimissed wrote:
Are you the smartest person in the room? You're certainly the angriest.
More narrative.
The difference between us is that I don't care if I am the smartest person in the room, only that the people *in* the room are afforded the possibility of expressing their opinions on an even footing without somebody summarily telling them they are all on some lower plane. in order to assuage their own ego...
Please stop trying to get me to understand things. You're speaking to me as if I know nothing but you have a lot of catching up to do. I don't think it helps you having btickler arguing on "your side", parroting what you're saying, more or less. He's providing you with confirmation bias.
I don't mean that what you are saying is wrong but it misses the practicalities of solving chess. You will insist on explaining things like what a 32-man tablebase might be. I would say that is holding back your ability to keep up with me. I'm not btickler or one of the others, to whom you have to constantly explain things. I think you need to catch up with me because you are not addressing the practical difficulties involved in "solving chess". Just constantly skirting around them and, I would venture to say, hiding behind a pretence that there are things you need to explain to me.
If I don't understand something, I will ask.
You're tripping the light fantastic again...
Elroch and I have completely different backgrounds, and there's no need for either of us to parrot anyone.
This is just an extension of your obsessive mindset about being the smartest person in the room. You always believe it is you (as your previous posts on this page can readily attest), and you similarly believe that everybody else also identifies who *they* think is the smartest person in the room and them blindly follows them. Nope, that's dysfunctional and something only deeply insecure people do (both by deciding that they have to be the smartest at all times, and in assuming everybody else acts the same way and is motivated by the same dysfunction).