@9438
"mathematicians have already said" ++ What mathematicians? Wrong mathematicians?
my guy ive been talking to math majors for over 2 years and i havent found a single one that agrees with literally any of your disagreements with me.
how about you go talk to a mathematician and get back to me.
@9429
"I suggest each of them one at a time." ++ I reject your stupid suggestion.
"why arent you addressing them?" ++ For obvious reasons.
by definition, if you have proved that g4 is losing, then you have a way of addressing each of the 10^18 possible ways white can defend.
by admitting that you are not addressing all of them, you are admitting you have no proof. thanks for admitting you are wrong, as per usual.
That isn't a helpful comment, is it. A random move isn't going to help white unless white has an extraordinary stroke of good fortune. Almost all of the 10 ^ 96 moves you suggest are random and therefore probably useless. That is not the way to analyse chess.
here's the thing. tygxc's base claim isnt a "chess analysis" claim. its a claim of ultra weakly solving the position. hes only providing basic chess evidence when his claim demands a full mathematical proof. if he were to argue that "current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses", his evidence would be actually relavent. but thats not what tygxc is arguing.
I'm arguing this way because it's human nature to try to answer questions which are less threatening rather than those which are more threatening Therefore, TYGXC is allowing him self to be drawn into what he feels are non-threatening criticisms.
bro the fact that youve been at this the entire time while still trying to be non threatening is genuinely impressive. as you have noticed, ive completely lost patience with him.
Actually I do see him trying changing his opinion I think he's stubborn but he's been very anti blitz he tried it last week
He's just super stubborn
Like long squash
@9447
"i havent found a single one that agrees with literally any of your disagreements with me"
++ Then you talked to the wrong math majors.
"how about you go talk to a mathematician" ++ I know more math than your majors.
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
I like watching tygxc down vote all my posts hehehe
@9452
"he's been very anti blitz he tried it last week"
++ I still believe blitz is worthless for progress. I also believe increment is good.
I used to be good at over the board 5|0 blitz, occasionally beating masters and even a grandmaster at it, but I am too slow now. I play 10|0, with officially is blitz. I tried 15|10, 10|5, 5|5, 5|3, but got no pairings, so I played some 3|2. Maybe I can still get 2000 in it.
@9447
"i havent found a single one that agrees with literally any of your disagreements with me"
++ Then you talked to the wrong math majors.
"how about you go talk to a mathematician" ++ I know more math than your majors.
funny how you refuse to provide your math education, nor do you address how its literally brought up to published mathematicians.
"++ Then you talked to the wrong math majors."
ive been actively looking bro. not a single person agrees with you. I just talked to another today, he laughed at you and said that you have no idea what rigor is required for proof. so, please find me the right math major. and no, random quotes taken out of context dont count.
@9458
"brought up to published mathematicians"
++ What published mathematicians? Where are their comments?
@9459
"not a single person agrees with you"
++ Their fault, not mine. I try to patiently explain as clearly as I can, but that is all I can do.
@9458
"brought up to published mathematicians"
++ What published mathematicians? Where are their comments?
im a math major at a university do you not think i have access to published mathematicians?
they completely agreed with everything (pertaining to mathematical proof) that ive said, and while they were much more polite about it, they basically called you [not intelligent] and in serious need of basic math proof education.
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
bro calls the difference between an analysis and a full proof "weasel words"
Wait long squash got muted
Sadness
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
bro calls the difference between an analysis and a full proof "weasel words"
I 100% wouldn't trust Fischer on anything. Good player but too many buts.
LOL i needed that, thank you.
@9441
"proved that g4 is losing"
++ I know 1 g4? loses by force and I have provided evidence: 4 sequences where white loses.
If you disagree, then provide one (1) sequence where white holds a draw.
That is how chess analysis works.
actually, no thats not how it works. appeal to ignorance, basic logical fallacy.