Those are good definitions of errors and blunders @tygxc
Good. But not ironclad.
And not totally comprehensive.
In common usage - a blunder can lose a game from an equal or unclear position.
There's also just 'weak play' - a series of inferior moves that can lose a game.
Happens constantly. Often 'positional moves' rather than tactical.
Maybe one could isolate one where it became 'clearly losing' but that's not the point.
The point is that even the computers can't necessarily catch 'weak play'.
I think Elroch dealt with that one - regarding '104 games'.
First...
498499500501
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
This feels like another troll...
If you don't have any alts someone's trolling lol
That also unfortunately means they are agreeing with you
May 20, 2024
0
#7425
""how would we know that it is an error if it is still a draw?"
++ By the end result of the game."
circular logic try again.
Playerafar deleted his comment...
May 20, 2024
0
#7427
playerafars wrote:
Those are good definitions of errors and blunders @tygxc
Good. But not ironclad.
And not totally comprehensive.
In common usage - a blunder can lose a game from an equal or unclear position.
There's also just 'weak play' - a series of inferior moves that can lose a game.
Happens constantly. Often 'positional moves' rather than tactical.
Maybe one could isolate one where it became 'clearly losing' but that's not the point.
The point is that even the computers can't necessarily catch 'weak play'.
I think Elroch dealt with that one - regarding '104 games'.
First...
498499500501
That isn't my account.
I don't have an s on the end of my name.
So somebody posting with that s on the end and then doctoring my posts.
The s gives it away.
I don't have any alts either.
Nor do I need to change my name often.
Its been many years. I think I only did it once.
They also joined 25 min ago this was planned 💀
May 20, 2024
0
#7429
yo playerafar - look up what a "poisson distribution" is.
tygxc claimed that chess errors follow that distribution
despite the fact that if you look at the axioms required, chess only follows ONE of the FOUR axioms.
and when confronted with that, tygxc responded with "oh it only works with stronger players/engines" - which ultimately ended up with his logic being "current chess play has zero errors because it follows this distribution, and it only follows this distribution because it has zero errors"
May 20, 2024
0
#7430
TK - you're an alt?
You've changed your name?
You don't have to answer.
Maybe we'll be seeing that 's' account for a while.
At first I thought I made a typo ...
That isn't my account.
I don't have an s on the end of my name.
So somebody posting with that r on the end and then doctoring my posts.
The s gives it away.
I don't have any alts either.
Nor do I need to change my name often.
Its been many years. I think I only did it once.
@10008
"Those are good definitions of errors and blunders" ++ Yes, it stems from GM Hübner.
"In common usage - a blunder can lose a game from an equal or unclear position."
++ Unclear positions do not exist: there are only won, drawn, or lost positions. We may not know which of the 3 a position is, and we usually do not know, but there are only 3 possibilities.
"a series of inferior moves that can lose a game."
++ No. There is one decisive error (?) that turns a drawn position into a lost position, or a decisive blunder (??), that turns a won position into a lost position.
"Often 'positional moves' rather than tactical."
++ A move is a move, it can either be good, an error(?), or a blunder (??).
"one could isolate one where it became 'clearly losing' but that's not the point."
++ It is the point.
"The point is that even the computers can't necessarily catch weak play"
++ The computer does not need to catch it, the end result catches it.
As chess is a draw, any decisive game must contain an odd number of errors, at least one.
We may be unable to identify which move or moves it was or were, but it must be there.
"Elroch dealt with that one" ++ Elroch made a good point about the possible error distribution 105-0-1 instead of 106-0-0, but it does not change Chess being a draw, or over 100 of the games being perfect games with 0 error.
Who's TK ?
May 20, 2024
0
#7434
"The most plausible explanation of 106 draw out of 106 games at planetary top level "
plausible isnt a mathematical proof.
May 20, 2024
0
#7435
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
yo playerafar - look up what a "poisson distribution" is.
tygxc claimed that chess errors follow that distribution
despite the fact that if you look at the axioms required, chess only follows ONE of the FOUR axioms.
and when confronted with that, tygxc responded with "oh it only works with stronger players/engines" - which ultimately ended up with his logic being "current chess play has zero errors because it follows this distribution, and it only follows this distribution because it has zero errors"
MEGA
I know what tygxc does.
I'm saying that so many try to take him down.
But they always fail.
He continues.
And now its over 10,000 posts.
Unlike 'O' tygxc needs no 'protection' at all.
tygxc - unlike O - is not delicate or fragile.
I wouldn't describe "O" as delicate of anyone here has an ego it's you 🤦
May 20, 2024
0
#7437
playerafar wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
yo playerafar - look up what a "poisson distribution" is.
tygxc claimed that chess errors follow that distribution
despite the fact that if you look at the axioms required, chess only follows ONE of the FOUR axioms.
and when confronted with that, tygxc responded with "oh it only works with stronger players/engines" - which ultimately ended up with his logic being "current chess play has zero errors because it follows this distribution, and it only follows this distribution because it has zero errors"
MEGA
I know what tygxc does.
I'm saying that so many try to take him down.
But they always fail.
He continues.
And now its over 10,000 posts.
Unlike 'O' tygxc needs no 'protection' at all.
tygxc - unlike O - is not delicate or fragile.
i misunderstood, i apologize. but i do encourage you to look into the terms used, so you can see for yourself how mistaken tygxc truly is.
May 20, 2024
0
#7438
playerafar wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@9995
"Engines and human beings are not capable of determining what a subtle error maybe be in the context of solving chess" ++ An error (?) is a move that turns a drawn position into a lost position, or a won position into a drawn position.
A blunder (??) or double error is a move that turns a won position into a lost position.
"in coming years when there are decisive ICCF games"
++ In previous years there were decisive ICCF WC Finals games, every year fewer, now none.
Those are good definitions of errors and blunders @tygxc
Good. But not ironclad.
And not totally comprehensive.
In common usage - a blunder can lose a game from an equal or unclear position.
There's also just 'weak play' - a series of inferior moves that can lose a game.
Happens constantly. Often 'positional moves' rather than tactical.
Maybe one could isolate one where it became 'clearly losing' but that's not the point.
The point is that even the computers can't necessarily catch 'weak play'.
I think Elroch dealt with that one - regarding '104 games'.
That's my post.
Not the one with the s on the end.
Plus somebody just PM'd me ... I sent a reply
but he didn't reply back.
Usually - I block on those.
Somebody - not I - is very worried about my posts.
That's not a new thing though.
Or maybe it is a troll ? I wouldn't call it worrying more harassment
May 20, 2024
0
#7440
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
playerafar wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
yo playerafar - look up what a "poisson distribution" is.
tygxc claimed that chess errors follow that distribution
despite the fact that if you look at the axioms required, chess only follows ONE of the FOUR axioms.
and when confronted with that, tygxc responded with "oh it only works with stronger players/engines" - which ultimately ended up with his logic being "current chess play has zero errors because it follows this distribution, and it only follows this distribution because it has zero errors"
MEGA
I know what tygxc does.
I'm saying that so many try to take him down.
But they always fail.
He continues.
And now its over 10,000 posts.
Unlike 'O' tygxc needs no 'protection' at all.
tygxc - unlike O - is not delicate or fragile.
i misunderstood, i apologize. but i do encourage you to look into the terms used, so you can see for yourself how mistaken tygxc truly is.
Thank you.
I was on this forum years ago.
I got very familiar with tygxc's posts and also took a position that he's very mistaken on many things.
But at the time I decided I didn't have time for this forum.
But - being privileged - I have time for a lot of things.
And now - coming back - my position is different.
About his positions.
I meant *why doesn't he
Fair enough tho