MARattigan wrote:
Yes they do. @Optimissed does.
I don't think that's true. Optimissed is aware of his issues at some level. He's just trying his best to contort and hide them...witness the post above.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Reread my post and learn from it, psycho. 
Anyway, the above is the pot talking to the kettle, not that I like using hackneyed phraseology.
Optimissed wrote:
Reread my post and learn from it, psycho.
Oh, I did 
. I learned that you are so twisted as to use your brother's death as some kind of faulty proof that you are okay, and toss him a backhanded "I told you so" posthumously, as well.
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Reread my post and learn from it, psycho.
Oh, I did . I learned that you are so twisted as to use your brother's death as some kind of faulty proof that you are okay, and toss him a backhanded "I told you so" posthumously, as well.
So I quoted this. I like a good quote and I want others to read it. They can draw their own conclusions.
It wasn't about me, but about you. Mentally. you're going downhill rapidly and more and more you're losing any ability to disguise your trolling. Everything, to you, has always been about the failings of others. You have no failings at all.
What happened to my brother should be a warning to you, because I can see him in you. Everything was everyone else's fault. Just like you. You may have early onset dementia.
Aug 27, 2022
0
#4307
Optimissed wrote:
Are you the smartest person in the room? You're certainly the angriest.
There is just one person here who consistently claims to be the smartest person in the room, no matter what the subject. That person also claims to have the greatest amount of knowledge on most subjects, unrivalled skill in analyzing questions and providing the most cogent arguments, and a superhuman capability to psychoanalyze anyone from just a few brief samples of their their thoughts on various chess-related questions.
Naturally, arguing against such a person automatically qualifies one as an angry, miserable troll. And, although being the most prolific purveyor of vitriol on the site, they are the quickest to take umbrage at any criticism.
By the way, it seems strange that the "many others" and "everyone else" routinely cited as supporters or sympathizers never seem to speak up.
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Are you the smartest person in the room? You're certainly the angriest.
There is just one person here who consistently claims to be the smartest person in the room, no matter what the subject. That person also claims to have the greatest amount of knowledge on most subjects, unrivalled skill in analyzing questions and providing the most cogent arguments, and a superhuman capability to psychoanalyze anyone from just a few brief samples of their their thoughts on various chess-related questions.
Naturally, arguing against such a person automatically qualifies one as an angry, miserable troll. And, although being the most prolific purveyor of vitriol on the site, they are the quickest to take umbrage at any criticism.
By the way, it seems strange that the "many others" and "everyone else" routinely cited as supporters or sympathizers never seem to speak up.
They do speak up but I know that most people prefer not to engage him. Many people consider him the worst and most unpleasant troll on the entire site and they can't cope with it and don't want to try. They want a quiet life and they keep clear of him. He isn't the only one.. Remember that small club I mentioned?? There aren't many but there are some. There's no point your trying to close ranks and protect your own.
Aug 27, 2022
0
#4309
I don't care to "protect" anyone else, it's just that I get annoyed by constant condescension, boasting, and name-calling.
Who do you suppose the "one person" I was mentioning might be?
Optimissed wrote:
So I quoted this. I like a good quote and I want others to read it. They can draw their own conclusions.
It wasn't about me, but about you. Mentally. you're going downhill rapidly and more and more you're losing any ability to disguise your trolling. Everything, to you, has always been about the failings of others. You have no failings at all.
What happened to my brother should be a warning to you, because I can see him in you. Everything was everyone else's fault. Just like you. You may have early onset dementia.
What an incredible intellect you must have to diagnose me sight unseen in a field you are not an expert in. Can you diagnose Fischer next? I'm sure you will be just as accurate.
Optimissed wrote:
They do speak up but I know that most people prefer not to engage him. Many people consider him the worst and most unpleasant troll on the entire site and they can't cope with it and don't want to try. They want a quiet life and they keep clear of him. He isn't the only one.. Remember that small club I mentioned?? There aren't many but there are some. There's no point your trying to close ranks and protect your own.
When are you going to realize your "many" friends (by which I mean barely a handful of people, the majority also known for trolling, like yourself) are not "most people on the site"?
If chess.com gave a hoot about the forums you'd have been gone long ago.
@4350
"Don't ICCF games get defaulted if a player dies?"
++ No, they are adjudicated.
3.17.1.1 'The TD will accept the following reasons for the withdrawal as adequate:
(a) Death of the player*'
2.13 '1. If no result has been determined by the date set for close of play, or in the event of
accepted withdrawal the TD will start the adjudication procedure.'
https://webfiles.iccf.com/rules/2022/ICCF%20Rules%20update%20for%201-1-2022%20-%20correction%201-25-22.pdf
@4354
"over 90% of those games are agreed drawn in positions where neither side knows what the theoretical result is."
++ No.
93% of ICCF WC games end in draws
Of the draws, 74% are agreed, 16% are 3-fold repetition, and 11% are table base draw claims.
Most of the agreed draws are in positions where both sides know that the theoretical result is a draw and where both sides are confident that their opponent will not make any mistake.
They do not agree on a draw in the initial position, though they both know that the theoretical result is a draw, because in 7% of games one player will make a mistake and lose.
There are a few exceptions, where players agree on a draw for convenience because of tournament standings, like coasting to victory with draws after a couple of wins or ending a bad tournament with draws after a couple of losses.
Here is the most recent finished ICCF WC game. It is 99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors. It ends in a draw because of a forced simplification to a 7-men table base drawn rook ending.
https://iccf.com/game?id=1164280
Aug 27, 2022
0
#4314
33_blackblackblackberry a écrit :
Chess CAN never be "solved". There is no "best move".
You can never predict what kind of move will tick, inspire, amuse, or bore your opponent. Since you don't know how your opponents deep game psychology might work. You don't know what his game strategies are, what kind of blundering tactics he might fall pray to. The "best move" to them is not the same "best move" to the next opponent.
Or, say even that a player did know exactly what would provoke one of these emotions from his opponent. Consider that the player played a "tricky" move. Even if it wasn't considered optimal by FIDE rating standards. For instance, player may intentionally sacrificed his Queen to gain better checkmate position. FIDE analysis would have regarded it a "dumb" move. Despite this, the player knew that he could use it to trick his opponent into thinking about making a tempting follow-up. The opponent didn't know the move he was baited into was going to be a blunder.
In both situations of knowing and not knowing your opponent's psychology which influence his moves, the "right" sequence of moves that would lead to the "best game" is completely fruitless and inobtainable.
Entièrement d'accord avec toi !
C'est d'ailleurs aussi pour cela que l'ordinateur décrète les supers coups et les coups brillants car ces derniers ne rentrent pas forcément dans la logique classique du jeu à un moment précis du jeu. Ces coups sont d'ailleurs souvent des sacrifices de pièces ou des coups qui vont à l'encontre d'un jeu dit "classique". Ces coups sont d'ailleurs considérés comme des erreurs si la suite n'apporte pas de gain de pièce ou de gain de position.
tygxc wrote:
@4354
"over 90% of those games are agreed drawn in positions where neither side knows what the theoretical result is."
++ No.
93% of ICCF WC games end in draws
Of the draws, 74% are agreed, 16% are 3-fold repetition, and 11% are table base draw claims.
Most of the agreed draws are in positions where both sides know that the theoretical result is a draw and where both sides are confident that their opponent will not make any mistake.
They do not agree on a draw in the initial position, though they both know that the theoretical result is a draw, because in 7% of games one player will make a mistake and lose.
There are a few exceptions, where players agree on a draw for convenience because of tournament standings, like coasting to victory with draws after a couple of wins or ending a bad tournament with draws after a couple of losses.
Here is the most recent finished ICCF WC game. It is 99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors. It ends in a draw because of a forced simplification to a 7-men table base drawn rook ending.
https://iccf.com/game?id=1164280
The reason we say things like "99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors" is because methods to evaluate that are crude and archaic.
The solution to chess does not lie in the 99% we think we are sure of, it lies in the 1%. The undiscovered that waits for centuries if necessary. Decent computers have only been around for about 50 years. So they are only beginning to scratch the surface of what's possible.
The solution to chess isn't important. But it will follow the same path as discoveries and solutions that are important. They all build on what's been learned in the past. But no matter how sure people are of the outcome, only that unforeseen unpredictable discovery leads to the answer. Probably all significant discoveries work that way.
@4372
"The reason we say things like "99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors" is because methods to evaluate that are crude and archaic."
++ No, the 99% stems from statistics and probability.
"The solution to chess does not lie in the 99% we think we are sure of, it lies in the 1%."
++ The 1% are drawn games with 2 errors that annihilate each other.
"The undiscovered that waits for centuries if necessary."
++ A lot has been discovered during centuries.
"So they are only beginning to scratch the surface of what's possible."
++ Also before computers much knowledge about chess has been accumulated.
"The solution to chess isn't important." ++ There seems to be an interest: 4373 posts.
"They all build on what's been learned in the past."
++ Yes, to solve chess it is beneficial to use knowledge acquired by humans and engines.
Aug 28, 2022
0
#4317
btickler a écrit :
Optimissed wrote:
They do speak up but I know that most people prefer not to engage him. Many people consider him the worst and most unpleasant troll on the entire site and they can't cope with it and don't want to try. They want a quiet life and they keep clear of him. He isn't the only one.. Remember that small club I mentioned?? There aren't many but there are some. There's no point your trying to close ranks and protect your own.
When are you going to realize your "many" friends (by which I mean barely a handful of people, the majority also known for trolling, like yourself) are not "most people on the site"?
If chess.com gave a hoot about the forums you'd have been gone long ago.
Oh là là, that’s the end of these oversized ego battles.
You got us all worked up!
You always want to be right, you end up being ridiculous
Nicoquelicots wrote:
Oh là là
[snip]
ridiculous
Your post neatly condenses down.
My purpose here is not to be right all the time.
Aug 28, 2022
0
#4319
btickler a écrit :
Nicoquelicots a écrit :
Oh c'est
[couper]
ridicule
I didn’t mention only "tickler" which obviously tickles, but also "tygxc" which tickles as much!
Votre message se condense parfaitement.
Mon but ici n'est pas d'avoir raison tout le temps.
Where did I even mention "my many friends"? (my claim, according to btickler)
I would never claim such a thing deliberately. I was talking about many people, probably whom I do not even know, who think exactly the same thing I do about this troll.
I don't even want many friends. Just people I can respect.
It's irrelevant what btickler posts. I've no doubt he's a troll. Since Elroch has misrepresented my comments, it's obvious to me that he's confused. I'm actually concerned that he has a problem, which he may not realise.
Before my younger brother died, six years ago, he had sadly become irrational. I pointed it out to him that he was inverting time sequences of events: imagining that things that happened before had happened after other events and getting into all sorts of problems. He was an intellectual. That is, he could read Sanskrit texts in the original and he was exceptionally accomplished in many ways.
We fell out, because he became highly unreasonable and I told him there was something seriously wrong. His answer was "My friends think I'm alright".
After he died and I had access to his medical records, it turned out that he had suffered a series of strokes and had brain lesions cause by an ear infection that has infected his brain. It was basically eating his brain away. His friends hadn't thought he was alright. I got to know most of them, while I was clearing his flat. Gave them each some of his belongings, which they asked for. One of them got a box containing Osho's toenails and bits and pieces that Osho had given him. Another got his famous mandolin. Another, some of his books or a musical instrument.
Very often, people don't know there's something wrong with them. I can see the mental decline of a number of people here. I am getting sharper ... because I've just been through the deaths of close relatives, a lot of stress and then Covid. But they are losing their ability and they don't know it.
As I say, it's concerning. Premature dementia can strike in the late 50s. It's characterised by people gradually losing their ability to cope in various ways and, at the same time, becoming increasingly anxious. Maybe irritable. I think I can see it happening to people here.
My increasing sharpness won't last forever but at the moment, the Covid induced haze is clearing and my blitz rating has gone back up by maybe 250 or more points and is still climbing, back towards where it was. It won't last forever. Nothing does. But I can see people who are younger than me becoming quite confused. And when you're already a troll, honesty and accuracy mean nothing to you. You have much less to keep you anchored to reality and of course, trolls are trolls because they're unbalanced already. Otherwise they would be able to get on with others and they wouldn't need to project their own insecurities onto others, to help them feel better, and then tell those others that they are the ones projecting. That way lies real madness.