As for "get bent", you might be but I'm not that way inclined.
toddler.attitude++;
you do javascript?
Not anymore, but that syntax works in several languages.
oh right c#, java, etc
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
no thanks 🙏💀
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
That you can read on your own...I am talking about making statements like "chess is a proven draw because Stockfish draws itself".
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
That you can read on your own...I am talking about making statements like "chess is a proven draw because Stockfish draws itself".
i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
That you can read on your own...I am talking about making statements like "chess is a proven draw because Stockfish draws itself".
i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get
It's one of the strongest engines, currently, but it's not the perfect chess player.
The argument could easily be made that it simply can't convert the advantage white starts with effectively enough.
i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get
And a stronger version of it comes out frequently, underscoring the fact that is it imperfect and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
That you can read on your own...I am talking about making statements like "chess is a proven draw because Stockfish draws itself".
i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get
It's one of the strongest engines, currently, but it's not the perfect chess player.
The argument could easily be made that it simply can't convert the advantage white starts with effectively enough.
yes that is why i said it's the strongest we can get, so, what i said a page ago, SO FAR, chess is a draw with perfect play
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
That you can read on your own...I am talking about making statements like "chess is a proven draw because Stockfish draws itself".
i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get
It's one of the strongest engines, currently, but it's not the perfect chess player.
The argument could easily be made that it simply can't convert the advantage white starts with effectively enough.
yes that is why i said it's the strongest we can get, so, what i said a page ago, SO FAR, chess is a draw with perfect play
Two things:
One: Stockfish isn't the strongest we can get. It's the strongest that currently exists, and stronger versions will continue to be released.
Two: Stockfish isn't perfect play; you can't say that chess is a draw with perfect play because the current strongest engine draws against itself. You can only say that once an engine that does play perfectly exists, if it draws against itself.
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
That you can read on your own...I am talking about making statements like "chess is a proven draw because Stockfish draws itself".
i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get
It's one of the strongest engines, currently, but it's not the perfect chess player.
The argument could easily be made that it simply can't convert the advantage white starts with effectively enough.
yes that is why i said it's the strongest we can get, so, what i said a page ago, SO FAR, chess is a draw with perfect play
Two things:
One: Stockfish isn't the strongest we can get. It's the strongest that currently exists, and stronger versions will continue to be released.
Two: Stockfish isn't perfect play; you can't say that chess is a draw with perfect play because the current strongest engine draws against itself. You can only say that once an engine that does play perfectly exists, if it draws against itself.
that is why i said "so far"
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
That you can read on your own...I am talking about making statements like "chess is a proven draw because Stockfish draws itself".
i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get
It's one of the strongest engines, currently, but it's not the perfect chess player.
The argument could easily be made that it simply can't convert the advantage white starts with effectively enough.
yes that is why i said it's the strongest we can get, so, what i said a page ago, SO FAR, chess is a draw with perfect play
Two things:
One: Stockfish isn't the strongest we can get. It's the strongest that currently exists, and stronger versions will continue to be released.
Two: Stockfish isn't perfect play; you can't say that chess is a draw with perfect play because the current strongest engine draws against itself. You can only say that once an engine that does play perfectly exists, if it draws against itself.
that is why i said so far
You said "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".
I am saying that isn't a proof, because Stockfish doesn't play chess perfectly and thus cannot be used to judge perfect chess.
"with the engines we have" is a key part in my sentence
But that's not a proof.
You said "it has actually been proven". It has not been proven, as I have just explained.
Optimissed and playafar either both are trolls or feed the trolls
Thought you're a troll and I'm obviously right. You're incoherent since you feed more trolls than ever had hot dinners.
BigChess the NewKid made thoughtless judgements without having info about the O-person being blocked in three big forums by Elroch and Dio.
Also BigChess made false accusations about my posting about chess here.
If he had been watching he would have seen my proofs about a factor of 500 for time taken multiplying itself in as pieces are added to the tablebases.
So he didn't know and made the accusation or did know and did so.
Either way - he lied.
So BigChess is thoughtless and lies and acts out on it - in other words his posts are idiotic. Therefore there is about zero obligation to read them.
Becoming more and more established.
But BC 'sees himself' in the O-person's foolish narcissism.
Explains why he wanted to suck up to O ...
But that dynamic seems to be 'having difficulties' now.
Optimissed and playafar either both are trolls or feed the trolls
Thought you're a troll and I'm obviously right. You're incoherent since you feed more trolls than ever had hot dinners.
BigChess the NewKid made thoughtless judgements without having info about the O-person being blocked in three big forums by Elroch and Dio.
Also BigChess made false accusations about my posting about chess here.
If he had been watching he would have seen my proofs about a factor of 500 for time taken multiplying itself in as pieces are added to the tablebases.
So he didn't know and made the accusation or did know and did so.
Either way - he lied.
So BigChess is thoughtless and lies and acts out on it - in other words his posts are idiotic. Therefore there is about zero obligation to read them.
Becoming more and more established.
But BC 'sees himself' in the O-person's foolish narcissism.
Explains why he wanted to suck up to O ...
But that dynamic seems to be 'having difficulties' now.
Your also a troll though please talk normally and not be rage inducing
Optimissed and playafar either both are trolls or feed the trolls
Thought you're a troll and I'm obviously right. You're incoherent since you feed more trolls than ever had hot dinners.
BigChess the NewKid made thoughtless judgements without having info about the O-person being blocked in three big forums by Elroch and Dio.
Also BigChess made false accusations about my posting about chess here.
If he had been watching he would have seen my proofs about a factor of 500 for time taken multiplying itself in as pieces are added to the tablebases.
So he didn't know and made the accusation or did know and did so.
Either way - he lied.
So BigChess is thoughtless and lies and acts out on it - in other words his posts are idiotic. Therefore there is about zero obligation to read them.
Becoming more and more established.
But BC 'sees himself' in the O-person's foolish narcissism.
Explains why he wanted to suck up to O ...
But that dynamic seems to be 'having difficulties' now.
Your also a troll though please talk normally and not be rage inducing
Playerafar can do better than be a measly insulting troll lol
Btw I asked him "why play no chess only talk on forums"
He gaslighted me and tried to clame hypocrisy lol He has problem of "feeding" the people he thinks are trolls
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.
mpaetz - like Dio and Elroch and Mar-attigan almost always makes great posts.
Dio always wins over the conceited O-character. That's @Optimissed.
Every single time.
Almost every single Post!
Its like watching an F-16 fighter jet blowing up farm outhouses and tricycles.
Similiar with Fester versus the O-pathetic narcissist and Elroch versus that same non-optimissed person.
Elroch and Dio have zero cause to be at odds.
And its the O-person who would like to get forums locked that he can't own.
Not Dio.
----------------------------
And mpaetz is of course correct.
Elroch's argument Zapped tygxc's claim.
But tygxc has courage.
He doesn't 'beat' Elroch's acutely on-point posts ...
But tygxc always holds himself up against all comers.
Many people don't perceive that.
But I think tygxc is well aware of it.
Its part of the dynamics of the situation. Part of how he does it.
I realized it almost immediately two years ago.
But wasn't sure how to act on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anyway folks - adding just one piece to the basic tablebases multiplies the positions involved by over 500 each time.
Because there's a variation of one of ten types of piece to be added each time ...
and with only 8 pieces on the board addressed for now (not even thoroughly solved) - there's over 50 squares available several times.
The fact that that 50 will sink into the forties and thirties as 32 pieces is hypothetically approached - doesn't prevent the trillions of trillions of years figures that will never be put in on this.
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.
do tell what on earth happened while i was gone, and how yall started arguing
That you can read on your own...I am talking about making statements like "chess is a proven draw because Stockfish draws itself".
i say stockfish because it is the strongest thing we can get
It's one of the strongest engines, currently, but it's not the perfect chess player.
The argument could easily be made that it simply can't convert the advantage white starts with effectively enough.
yes that is why i said it's the strongest we can get, so, what i said a page ago, SO FAR, chess is a draw with perfect play
What is "so far" worth in this context?
As good as Morphy saying "chess is a win for white, so far.. until someone beats me." Anyway..
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
You probably ought to skim the previous 500+ pages before you start down this road.