Everyone's a crackpot, aren't they. And you always win ALL your disagreements and arguments. And sock-puppets had better beware. And your chess rating .... what IS your rating?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Aug 25, 2022
0
#4203
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.
They would be wrong if they had claimed that.
However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.
In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.
Optimissed wrote:
Everyone's a crackpot, aren't they. And you always win ALL your disagreements and arguments. And sock-puppets had better beware. And your chess rating .... what IS your rating?
Not everybody...the crackpots give off signals. Staccato disjointed attempts to gain some kind traction would be one of them...
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.
They would be wrong if they had claimed that.
However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.
In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.
Then both of them would be wrong. You don't seem to know the difference between a strategy and tactical combinations.
I suggest that we change this conversation.
This conversation is now only concerned with 1. e4 Nf6 2. Qh5. You seem very conveniently to have forgotten that.
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Everyone's a crackpot, aren't they. And you always win ALL your disagreements and arguments. And sock-puppets had better beware. And your chess rating .... what IS your rating?
Not everybody...the crackpots give off signals. Staccato disjointed attempts to gain some kind traction would be one of them...
Everyone who dislikes you is a crackpot. Even if they dislike you for VERY good reasons: for instance, your constant trolling and personal attacks on hundreds of members here. The signals they give off are probably dislike.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.
They would be wrong if they had claimed that.
However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.
In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.
Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
you lose the argument. I win either way. If you don't think it's a loss for white, you're inept. If you do, then you have to explain exactly where the demarcation lies between knowing something's a loss and not being sure.
I just won the argument, because you can't answer that.
Optimissed wrote:
Everyone who dislikes you is a crackpot. Even if they dislike you for VERY good reasons: for instance, your constant trolling and personal attacks on hundreds of members here. The signals they give off are probably dislike.
I won't post all weekend, if you can name even a dozen people I have "attacked". Just more made-up narrative.
Aug 25, 2022
0
#4209
Optimissed wrote:
...
Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
you lose the argument.
...
Er, are we talking about basic rules or competition rules?
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
...
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
...
Er, are we talking about basic rules or competition rules?
It doesn't matter. 
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Everyone who dislikes you is a crackpot. Even if they dislike you for VERY good reasons: for instance, your constant trolling and personal attacks on hundreds of members here. The signals they give off are probably dislike.
I won't post all weekend, if you can name even a dozen people I have "attacked". Just more made-up narrative.
You do nothing but project, even to the extent of accusing others of projection. It wouldn't alter the truth of what I say whether I can name them or not. Hundreds of people. You started this present round of bickering. You are the one who goes in cycles, a month on and a month off. It's obvious you have a problem. Chess.com should just introduce proper blocking, as on Facebook.
what even happened here
also why does every forum on this site turn into a flamewar lol
Aug 25, 2022
0
#4213
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
...
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
...
Er, are we talking about basic rules or competition rules?
It doesn't matter.
I don't think 2. Qh5 is allowed under competition rules.
Aug 25, 2022
0
#4214
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.
They would be wrong if they had claimed that.
However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.
In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.
Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
you lose the argument. I win either way. If you don't think it's a loss for white, you're inept. If you do, then you have to explain exactly where the demarcation lies between knowing something's a loss and not being sure.
I just won the argument, because you can't answer that.
That's not how arguments work. 2. Ba6 and 2. Qh5 have not been shown to be lost. Unless you think that you being convinced they are lost (fair enough, it's a bishop or a queen down) means that you won the argument.
Aug 25, 2022
0
#4215
It is interesting how difficult the difference between a very safe bet and something that is known for certain is to many people (including @Optimissed, apparently). Here it is of importance because it is the difference between an unproven (but strongly believed) mathematical proposition and one that has been proved, despite the probabilities being rather small (I would say).
It's worth mentioning that it does happen in mathematics that mathematicians consider a result to be so likely to be true that they act as if it were, while acknowledging that it hasn't been proven. This happens more in theoretical physics where rigour is sometimes put aside in favour of progress.
Optimissed wrote:
You do nothing but project, even to the extent of accusing others of projection. It wouldn't alter the truth of what I say whether I can name them or not. Hundreds of people. You started this present round of bickering. You are the one who goes in cycles, a month on and a month off. It's obvious you have a problem. Chess.com should just introduce proper blocking, as on Facebook.
Still waiting. Hundreds of people...finally allowed to speak up under the protection of their erstwhile champion, the best debater on all of Facebook...
Any time, they are all going to show up...
You are actually completely obsessed with me. I have a wife, you know.
Neither am I that way inclined.
Aug 25, 2022
0
#4219
TheChessIntellectReturns wrote:
Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.
Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.
Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?
No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.
the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.
nothing in the world can change that.
So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.
If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.
So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.
If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.
To be honest, I think it was solved. If two perfect players played, it would be a draw
If someone figures out with a supercomputer that either white or black can win with perfect play no matter what, then chess would be zero fun.
So if the latter is true, than I hope chess will never be solved.
Oh and this isn't about other people. It's about you. If you want to continue to pick fights and insult people because you don't understand their arguments, you'll have to take the consequences. There can be points when all people can do is to point out your intellectual limitations. If you could at least show willing to try to understand arguments made by others, instead of trying to make fun of them all the time, at least people would have more sympathy for you and probably wouldn't dislike you so much.
Almost every argument that you and I have ever had has been caused by your failure to understand something I've raised when talking to others. So then you butt in and start with the sly insults. Everyone knows what you're like. And you object when the root cause of your failure to understand just about anything, that isn't directly related to computers, is pointed out. Yet you cause it by your constantly sly, vindictive, passive aggressive behaviour.
It's not about me. It's about you, as the overwrought rationalizing above amply proves. Nor is Elroch secretly trolling me, nor is Tygxc quietly laughing about whatever your silly premise was. These are all just elements of the narrative you tell yourself.
You're just another crackpot I shoot down on occasion.