The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
I understand English. I also understand what is required of a definition.
You clearly don't understand English as well as you suppose, and the same goes for what is required of a definition. Definitions are always understood in context and what I am proposing is far less ambiguous, more focussed and far more efficient. All you're advocating is the status quo. That's fine. It's your prerogative but I'm showing anybody who is interested that your status quo is unfocussed, confusing and inadequate.
English has ambiguities. The term "good move" is ambiguous, so does not mean the same as "perfect move" with the usual definition of the latter. The phrase "good move" does not define it correctly.
So is "perfect move", but you accept that as a jargon or a specialised phrase. Your observation is subjective and one-eyed.
You're the most pretentious poster on the thread, Why are you objecting on those grounds?
And I would say that I'm the least pretentious, certainly compared with some I could name.
The use of exact definitions and specialised nomenclature excludes only those like yourself who are either incapable of understanding them or can't be bothered Those people are not going to make any useful contribution to the discussion anyway.
Come on. I may be cleverer than you but you've had a career in computing. You wish to use any tactics to discredit others. I know what I'm saying is right and you discredit yourself completely by making all these fuzzy, subjective and personally motivated objections, instead of arguing, or trying to, in a straightforward manner. I don't think you're able to discuss anything for very long without being personal and wanting to defend your territory.
For the rest of us they're useful, indispensible even if the subject is to be discussed seriously.
Maybe they are if you don't have any real ability to rethink. But you're hardly capable of discussing anything seriously. I've never seen anyone who habitually brings in so many irrelevances. My talking about my mother-in-law for five hours pales in comparison with the crap you talk. No difference at all in kind between you and tygxc talking about Mr S's project all the time.
<<<The existing definitions are second rate jargon and are the reason for a general difficulty many have in understanding this subject.>>>
There you seem to disagree with the academics who have spent years studying game theory. For my part, I prefer the second rate jargon to anything you have proposed to replace it. Mainly because it's workable and your suggestion of replacing it with ambiguities is not.
Yes I do, don't I. I can still think but perhaps you can't? Of course, I can have no idea as to what your starting level was like.
The are no good moves in a position. Only bad moves that changes the Balance of the Position.
No move can improve the position with perfect play. You can only make the position worst against perfect play.
And remember a move that wins slower, or loses faster in not a imperfect move. As it does not change the balance of the position.
Chess does not give extra credit for finding these types of moves.
But with a perfect solved solution of the game of chess. This information is nice to know, and is known.
In the context of solving chess, a good move is any move that doesn't alter the game state. It has nothing to do with anything else and MAR is incapable of thinking clearly and logically.
A good move is not defined in the context of solving chess, it's normally used in comments on practical play.
There are only good moves and bad moves. If a move doesn't alter the game state, then it cannot be a losing move. If it complicates the game, it may be to the taste of someone who doesn't want to give an opponent an easy game. So no subjective evaluations are relevant, which is why MAR is wrong, as well as being a troll.
Subjective evaluations are not relevant to solving chess. That's why your proposal to replace all the definitions (second rate jargon as you describe them) by subjective terms is moronic.
When you say I'm wrong about the distinction between solving and playing chess you're just highlighting your own inability to read and comprehend.
@DesperateKingWalk re post #7644
More or less exactly what I was talking about.
Some points:
The are no good moves in a position. Only bad moves that changes the Balance of the Position.
You also have given no definition of "good" and "bad" moves, so your statement can be understood only in an informal sense.
Here are two games from the position I posted for @Optimissed. In both cases White is Arena/Rybka 2.3.2a at 10 sec. fixed think time on my desktop.
The first game is against SF15 with the same time control. The second against the top moves on the Syzygy site, which I entered manually,
In an informal sense I would describe the moves from Syzygy as bad (compared with those by SF15, or in fact compared with those of anyone but a total beginner - I got mate in 8 when I tried it). I'd describe them as bad compared with SF15 becase Rybka comes out a half point better off against them.
I'd also describe Syzygy's moves as perfect. That's because I have a definition of "perfect" and it applies to the moves. So in the context of solving chess that is correct.
That is the problem with trying to make exact statements such as the one above with undefined and consequently ambiguous terms. The point I was trying to make to @Optimissed (obviously with zero success).
You can only make the position worst with perfect play.
No. In fact with perfect play the best game-theoretic result is achieved. You can say that unequivocally, because we have a definition of perfect play and that's what it says.
You could make a position worse or better in some informal senses by making a perfect move, but not by perfect play.
But with a perfect solved solution of the game of chess. This information is nice to know, and is known.
A solution of chess does not necessarily tell you what moves are accurate, though some do.