It's noon. Well calculated.
Babies like their afternoon nap.
Well, that explains your absence earlier...
Have you got anything, and really...it could be anything...of substance to try and post, or have you been reduced to this level of response for some indefinite amount of time?
Oh are you still at it? "Can you recognise things of substance" comes to mind.
I'll let you know if you ever post something that qualifies.
?What if I had claimed that the lockdowns killed over 100,000 people?
?What would your response have been?
You mean what would I have said if you didn't make a ridiculously overstated claim knowing that you had no data to support it? Note how you still avoid even an attempt to justify it. You are tacitly admitting your trolling here.
If you said that lockdown and vaccine "saves" outnumbered lockdown-related deaths by a factor of at least 100-1, then I probably would not have taken you to task.
I find the concept that an equal number of mistakes by top masters using the best engines, thereby preserving the draw, is any justification for the conclusion that chess is inherently drawn and any "solution" to chess will necessarily indicate it's drawn nature to be unconvincing. Just because GM/engine "A" misses a move that could lead to a lasting advantage and GM/engine "B" also fails to see it doesn't mean that the game has been played correctly.
I find the concept that an equal number of mistakes by top masters using the best engines, thereby preserving the draw, is any justification for the conclusion that chess is inherently drawn and any "solution" to chess will necessarily indicate it's drawn nature to be unconvincing. Just because GM/engine "A" misses a move that could lead to a lasting advantage and GM/engine "B" also fails to see it doesn't mean that the game has been played correctly.
In principle it could be that all current players are simply blind to a very deep way to play that therefore has no influence on the statistics.
As an analogy, imagine a game like Nim where there is a maximally narrow way to win for one player, but modified so that there is an easy way for both players to draw. If players learn how to play very precisely in the ways that draw, their games will reveal zero information about the existence of a winning strategy.
This seems unlikely, but the basis for this belief is very imprecise.
When you take so-called experts at face value, very often you get drawn into the stuff they put out...
Millions of poorly qualified conspiracy theorists can't be wrong.
chessdotcom, the lowest rung of the debating ladder.
Go ahead and contribute then, Chris. Nobody is stopping you.
Not answering the question are we, because we know that however you answer that question you're getting yourself into trouble. The question was answered.
I think the admitted guess of a million will be about right. Covid will have cost that many deaths or thereabouts, due to the hysterical over-reaction. Maybe half a million but definitely a lot of deaths due to undiscovered cancer, heart attacks, strokes, suicide due to depression ....
Go ahead and pony up some kind of realistic offering if you believe that deaths due to Covid measures equaled or exceeded people saved by those measures...your 1 million and half a million numbers have been withdrawn directly from your posterior...
If you can't be bothered to research it because you're too lazy and self-opinionated, It isn't for me to disarrange your comfortable posture. So sod off.
I've already researched it...you, however, haven't.
So, your position is "I will say it's a million people dead, and if questioned about where the million comes from, I will say do your own research and get bent..."
This is a toddler's attitude.
as a programmer, this is legit nonsense
I can program too but unless you can give reasons that are at least half decent, why is anyone going to believe you? I'm the Emperor of China and I can wear iron shoes with ease. Just take my word for it and don't be a baby. Would I lie to you?
write me some code will ya
No because I have no reason to respect you. Give me reasons you dislike my ideas and if I respect you after you do that, I'll write you some code.
uhhh wdym i dont dislike it im just saying yall could talk like regular people
In that case, either you don't understand research or you're dishonest. Wait, we know you're thick and we know you're dishonest.
Let me give you a hint. Enter the opposite from your belief into a search engine, look at what ALL the links are saying and try to criticise them honestly.
Then criticise the criticism you came up with.
Then do it the other way round.
I understand research quite a bit better than you do. Especially online. None of that matters. We're still left with the bald-faced reality: you claimed a million dead from lockdown measures, and cannot justify or support your claim in even the smallest degree.
You claimed you were a knowledgeable programmer, and even said you would like me to prove it if you weren't. When I asked some questions, you pretended the exchange never happened. You cannot justify or support your claim in even the smallest degree.
You claim that chess is a forced draw with perfect play. You cannot justify or support your claim in even the smallest degree.
You claim that some posters are alts of other posters and that they conspire against you. You cannot justify or support your claim in even the smallest degree.
Are you picking up on the pattern here?
In that case, either you don't understand research or you're dishonest. Wait, we know you're thick and we know you're dishonest.
Let me give you a hint. Enter the opposite from your belief into a search engine, look at what ALL the links are saying and try to criticise them honestly.
Then criticise the criticism you came up with.
Then do it the other way round.
I understand research quite a bit better than you do. Especially online. None of that matters. We're still left with the bald-faced reality: you claimed a million dead from lockdown measures, and cannot justify or support your claim in even the smallest degree.
You claimed you were a knowledgeable programmer, and even said you would like me to prove it if you weren't. When I asked some questions, you pretended the exchange never happened. You cannot justify or support your claim in even the smallest degree.
You claim that chess is a forced draw with perfect play. You cannot justify or support your claim in even the smallest degree.
You claim that some posters are alts of other posters and that they conspire against you. You cannot justify or support your claim in even the smallest degree.
Are you picking up on the pattern here?
it is widely believed that chess is a forced draw with perfect play as we know so far.
As for "get bent", you might be but I'm not that way inclined.
toddler.attitude++;
As for "get bent", you might be but I'm not that way inclined.
toddler.attitude++;
you do javascript?
it is widely believed that chess is a forced draw with perfect play as we know so far.
Yes, it is widely believed, not claimed as if proven. Thus the differing definitions of the words belief vs. claim.
it is widely believed that chess is a forced draw with perfect play as we know so far.
Yes, it is widely believed, not claimed as if proven. Thus the differing definitions of the words belief vs. claim.
it actually has been proven with the engines we have. play a game of chess stockfish vs stockfish. it will eventually lead to a draw
Go ahead and dig up some of my displayed symptoms of paranoia as well then, I guess?
Here? I mean, this comment?
Now explain for us exactly which words indicate paranoia...outside of your own head.
This comment?
Which words? Give us some insight into the hidden meanings of the English language...the "this comment right here" bit is already tired, surely you can be more creative.