""Yes I accept that. I often question myself as to whether I've understood something".
In other words he often fails to understand."
thats the difference. at least hes intellectually honest, unlike tygxc. I would rather argue optimissed over tygxc any day.
""Yes I accept that. I often question myself as to whether I've understood something".
In other words he often fails to understand."
thats the difference. at least hes intellectually honest, unlike tygxc. I would rather argue optimissed over tygxc any day.
You don't get it.
That's O on his best behaviour.
Which was 'extracted' by skilllful posts by Elroch and Dio.
You just haven't seen. But that's okay.
I expect that to happen. He manipulates you.
Under a lot of pressure from Elroch and Dio - 'O' caved in and admitted he sometimes 'doesn't understand'.
'O' is incensed and angry that he's been blocked by both of them -
something he entirely deserves.
But now 'O' decided he couldn't afford to continue as he was.
I'll quote the post that 'broke him' for now.
Not sure the first sentence (and ergo last) is accurate. Not a lot of pressure on this thread for anyone outside of Tygxc.
Now, the coffee's been served but before I look at the given definition, I want to make a rhetorical arguments of "if you don't know what the information means, how can it be perfect or full".
If we imagine an analogy of a chess position in the form of a code which hasn't been broken. The earth's being attacked by Martians and we're able to pick up the coded message. But how have we got perfect information if we don't know what it means?
So similarly, a complex chess position. It may be a win for either side or perhaps a draw. We can see the position clearly but we are not capable of determining an evaluation. It's the same thing. We have the information but it's given in a code which we can't interpret. We can see the chess position but we can't tell who's winning. We can only giess, based on rules of thumb. How is that perfect information? If I had perfect information on something, I'd expect it to be understandable.
Your premise that is that you are capable of understanding any information given to you. Reams of evidence on these forums would show this to be demonstrably false. Don't feel bad, though...it's false for any and all human beings.
"Your premise that is that you are capable of understanding any information given to you. Reams of evidence on these forums would show this to be demonstrably false"
That's from Dio. Not from me.
Again - causing 'O' to concede. 'Breaking' him.
Mega - you're not watching. Its not about me.
O made another pseudointellectual statement trying to pretend that if information is perfect we ought to know who's winning.
Which doesn't follow.
Elroch then did a good job of refuting that and him.
----------------------------------------------
'O' often says pseudo-intellectual things.
'If its an opinion it can't be inaccurate'
'science is a belief system'
'vaccination weakens the immune system'.
These are 'honest'?
They are ignorant and flawed and designed to titillate science deniers ...
But that's not the key - which is his agenda to make forums as about credentialism and himself and his family and his trolling.
He'd rather a forum is locked than he doesn't dominate it.
Which happened in his trolling of Fester.
A forum can hardly breathe ... Dio and Elroch rightly blocked him.
--------------------------------------
And that's one of the reasons I like tygxc.
He's actually outwitting some of the people here a lot of the time.
And O gets defeated trying to make this forum as about him.
Defeated. By tygxc. For years. Whether tygxc is right or wrong.
They don't realize it though.
Dio did you block "O" of is this guy bluffing ?
Optimissed is blocked by me, yes, for violating the guidelines of the Covid thread. Almost everyone I have blocked currently is blocked for this reason
I personally don't see anything wrong with the comment maybe inaccurate but not insulting in any way stop
You don't see much BC.
And like O you don't have any authority here.
Dio and Elroch refuted O.
It wasn't about me.
So you can stop trying to make it about me and stop attacking tygxc.
In other words - practice what you're preaching.
You can.
I don't think you can shut up anybody here.
O has been muted by the staff on multiple occasions for trolling people.
And Sobrukai recently warned O to stop trollling or he'd report him.
You want to shut me up?
You want to have a double standard?
You can jump in a lake pal. See ya.
Fair lol I'm just mad that this guy is bringing up the wrong points for reasons why /bad evidence
He can be mad at people but there's a block freatrr for a reason just use it
You want to block tygxc?
He's not disruptive of forums.
You just don't know.
You could try admitting that.
tygxc has actually been the life of this forum.
Yes I don't agree with his claims ... but he's testing people here.
Good testing. Making a good job of it.
He's promoting a lot of activity here.
No I'm not blocking tygxc he hasn't intellectually insulted anyone like you have
He's not super disruptive he doesn't really take disagreements super well but then again half the people here don't
You don't know the difference between 'talking back' and 'insulting'.
And you're contradicting yourself with your own attitude.
But I don't have time.
You apparently grasp you can't shut people up here.
When you can't grasp it - you need to turn your shower on colder.
See ya. Yeah - logging off.
Your missing everyone's point initially you should probably calm down First before you start making angry posts just cause someone's a dumb*** doesn't mean you go insulting people for it you never know people change you are actually starting to attack people now
Just checking back in briefly.
Follow your own advice BC.
And don't make strawmen about 'calm down'.
You don't know what you're talking about.
If you were thinking this through properly you'd admit to yourself that you're 'new' and you don't know the context and to find out and then think some more about it instead of kneejerking.
---------------------------------------------------------
O has been 'straightened out' by Dio and Elroch about 'perfect information'.
A rare event.
But it'll likely just be temporary.
A while back O was also straightened out by Fester - who told him 'you will address others as your equals if you want good treatment' ...
It worked for a couple of days but then was too much for O.
He even tried to pretend his improved behaviour was about me - not him and Fester. That's how crazy he can get.
-----------------------------------------------------
'you will address others as your equals if you want good treatment'
advice most people wouldn't need - but an idea he ignores.
With the consequences. For him.
@9592
"It is necessary to deal with ALL LEGAL RESPONSES to a specific strategy"
++ No. against ALL OPPOSITION, i.e. all responses that oppose.
It is not necessary to present a full game tree after 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5?. We know it loses for white.
We know by logic that 1 a4 cannot be a better move than 1 e4.
So if a way is proven to draw against 1 e4, then a fortiori there is a way to draw against 1 a4.
'It is beneficial to incorporate game knowledge in solving games' - Prof. Van den Herik
'Chess is a very logical game' - Capablanca
@9627
"its impossible to claim that something loses by force until you have accounted for every possible line" ++ No. It is very well possible to claim 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5? loses by force without having accounted for every line.
@9627
"its impossible to claim that something loses by force until you have accounted for every possible line" ++ No. It is very well possible to claim 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5? loses by force without having accounted for every line.
This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.
try again.
@9592
"It is necessary to deal with ALL LEGAL RESPONSES to a specific strategy"
++ No. against ALL OPPOSITION, i.e. all responses that oppose.
It is not necessary to present a full game tree after 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5?. We know it loses for white.
We know by logic that 1 a4 cannot be a better move than 1 e4.
So if a way is proven to draw against 1 e4, then a fortiori there is a way to draw against 1 a4.
'It is beneficial to incorporate game knowledge in solving games' - Prof. Van den Herik
'Chess is a very logical game' - Capablanca
lmfao random quotes because you dont have an actual argument. proving a draw against e4 doesnt prove a draw against a4.
@playerafar its pretty clear that "Bigchessplayer" isnt a full adult so please have some kindness in your responses to them
@9615
"I gave the actual definition of Weakly Solved. I don't really care what Herik says."
++ Who are you to say what is actual and not care how the World's authority on solving games carefully words it in a classical scientific paper? That is hubris. If everybody is using his own definitions, then confusion is guaranteed. Is your objective to confuse?
The actual definition is:
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the gamet-heoretic value against any opposition"
"Your game theoretic value hedge is just there to allow you to pretend that a draw is the default result and that a forced win would be an aberration."
++ No. Game theoretic value is a carefully chosen expression to allow games with more possible outcomes and even games with more than 2 players. It is not my term, it is Prof. Van den Herik's.
'The game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally'
For chess a priori it is open if the game-theoretic value of the initial position is either a draw,
a white win, or a black win.
I gave an inductive as well as a deductive proof that the game-theoretic value of the initial position must be a draw.
Observed fact: 105 games out of 105 in the ICCF World Championship Finals end in draws.
If you dispute that the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw,
then please explain how it could be that all 105 games only contain an odd number of errors: 1, 3, 5... and none (0) contains en even number of errors: 0, 2, 4....
If you dispute that the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw, then please explain how a single tempo could suffice to win for white, or how black could force a win.
If you accept that the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw,
but you dispute that the 105 ICCF World Championship Finals draws are perfect games,
then please explain how all 105 games contain an even nonzero number of errors,
i.e. all errors occur in pairs only and no unpaired error occurs.
You can believe Chess is no draw, or you can believe the 105 ICCF WC Finals' games are not perfect games, but if your beliefs contradict observed facts, then your beliefs are wrong.
@9682
"The definitions I gave were better" ++ hubris
"less confusing" ++ more confusing
"terminolgy was hindering understanding"
++ terminology maybe, but mainly intelligence was hindering understanding.
For lack of other references I gauge intelligence as proportional to chess rating.
Anyway, for a common word, the definition is what a dictionary says, for a term in some field of expertise the definition is what a publication by an authority in the field says.
"A move that doesn't alter the value of the game-state is simply a good move." ++ Yes.
"no move can increase the value of the game-state" ++ Correct.
"You can't turn a draw into a win with a move, but you can turn a draw into a loss." ++ Yes.
"That holds whether the initial position is dawn with good play on each side or lost for one side." ++ Yes.
"As soon as you try to introduce Game Theory into chess, you lose perepsctive" ++ No.
"Herik was a Game Theorist and so he has no place in solving chess"
++ He was the authority on solving games, including Chess. Please read his paper.
I guess you confuse your notion of Game Theory.
"Those who may have involved him, GMs or not, were mstaken." ++ No, you are.
"The result is the things you believe, that chess can be solved in a few years"
++ I admit I was at first surprised by GM Sveshnikov's claim he could weakly solve chess in 5 years if given good assistants and modern computers.
But he was 65+ World Champion, held an MSc. and almost a PhD. in engineering, and was the world's authority on analysing chess openings with engines, which he taught to grandmasters.
After thinking and calculating I realised he was right.
Then I thought there was a need for computers and assistants and I calculated 3 would do.
Now I realise it is unnecessary: the 17 ICCF (grand)masters with their computers do it.
"++ I admit I was at first surprised by GM Sveshnikov's claim he could weakly solve chess in 5 years if given good assistants and modern computers."
he never made that claim, you just made it up. i read the article, he makes no such claim.
Herik has nothing to do with the argument because nothing he wrote supports your claims.
""The definitions I gave were better" ++ hubris"
the irony of the guy calling hubris when he thinks himself better than literal mathematicians.
"I gave an inductive as well as a deductive proof that the game-theoretic value of the initial position must be a draw."
no proof given, i showed your "proof" to math majors and mathematicians and they all found the same flaws that i pointed out to you. literally not a single person who has a math background takes your claims seriously.
its why theres no mention of any such proof in game theory journals. because such a proof doesnt exist for chess.
I am begging you to actually have some intellectual honesty and look at your fantasy with an honest lens.
Now, the coffee's been served but before I look at the given definition, I want to make a rhetorical arguments of "if you don't know what the information means, how can it be perfect or full".
If we imagine an analogy of a chess position in the form of a code which hasn't been broken. The earth's being attacked by Martians and we're able to pick up the coded message. But how have we got perfect information if we don't know what it means?
So similarly, a complex chess position. It may be a win for either side or perhaps a draw. We can see the position clearly but we are not capable of determining an evaluation. It's the same thing. We have the information but it's given in a code which we can't interpret. We can see the chess position but we can't tell who's winning. We can only giess, based on rules of thumb. How is that perfect information? If I had perfect information on something, I'd expect it to be understandable.
You seem confused between information and making deductions from that information.
For example, if I give the question to you:
"How many factors does the following number have: 2748132412641276392817612648721647126498127348712742077492749274927409217498127409827154012740981275012834223895821975294281275987209412734981269461290120e487120874981264978126e49712647126497124712948219272847284712841 ?"
you have complete information about the problem. That does not mean you can solve it.
This was a great post by Elroch.
Usually Dio is the best at interfering with O's trolling.
And Fester usually the best at getting O to modify his behaviour.
Dio then followed up.
-------------------------------------
And within O's spiels - we then got this from O. That's @Optimissed.
"Yes I accept that. I often question myself as to whether I've understood something".
In other words he often fails to understand.
He would rather try to make it as about credentials and personalization and even his family. Constantly.
This time - he was broken. They didn't let him get away with that.
And he doesn't 'question himself' often Enough!
Not nearly.