"It was longer than 3 sentences, and somewhat well organized, and had words above a 10 year old's reading level... I think that's chat GPT."
No, it's just normal writing... well, normal for 20 years ago, before text messages and twitter and tiktok videos reduced attention spans to 5 seconds or less.
bros spitting facts
, it's just normal writing... well, normal for 20 years ago, before text messages and twitter and tiktok videos reduced attention spans to 5 seconds or less
i have an attention span of 3 min 😭
A relevant joke:
An astronomer, a physicist, and a mathematician are taking a train from London to Glasgow, they cross into Scotland and see a field with black sheep. The astronomer says "all the sheep in Scotland are black", the physicist says "no, some of the sheep in Scotland are black and the mathematician says "no, there exists in Scotland at least one field in which exists at least one sheep at least one side of which is black".
Anyway, I accept that there have been others "passing through", who see the problems as clearly as I do. Most of the regular posters here are stuck in one idealistic viewpoint or another. There's the mathematical solution section, which is obviously delusional (I rarely use that word but here it fits because it's put forward by mathematicians, who should know better) and the pragmatic section, which, unfortunately, believes everything it's told by "game theorists". There seemed even to be a "computer programmer" emergent section. What relationship the strategy of solving chess has with computer programming, I cannot even guess. Computer programming is a specialised tool and not a strategy.
The point being that many posters here have about the same capability for making relevant and intelligent comment as the Rattigan's or playerafars attempts.
For clarification, the methods and standards of the fields of game theory and computer science are the exact same as those of mathematics. You can accurately think of them as part of the realm of "greater mathematics".
To be more specific, these are subjects dealing with precisely defined abstract entities and axioms and which arrive at their results by deductive reasoning. This constrasts unambiguously with all the natural sciences, which use different methods. Another branch of "greater mathematics" is information theory. There are others, sometimes spawned as abstract fields that arise out of the models created for a science.
A relevant joke:
An astronomer, a physicist, and a mathematician are taking a train from London to Glasgow, they cross into Scotland and see a field with black sheep. The astronomer says "all the sheep in Scotland are black", the physicist says "no, some of the sheep in Scotland are black and the mathematician says "no, there exists in Scotland at least one field in which exists at least one sheep at least one side of which is black".
goddam thats so relevant here
Anyway, I accept that there have been others "passing through", who see the problems as clearly as I do. ...
Poor sods.
You should add an astrologer to that joke so Optimissed can feel included.
bruh wtf
can someone make a new thread about this and start anew with clearer and more managed discussions
@10191
"chess is a draw with perfect play because the current strongest engine draws against itself"
No. Autoplay hold a risk of double error. The ICCF World Championship Finals has 17 different entities ICCF (grand)masters + engines. They draw 106 games out of 106 against each other.
That means Chess is a draw and we have 100+ perfect games that show how to draw.
what a dumb guy, bro really thinks two different engines cant make the same error.
and plus, this entire argument ASSUMES chess is a draw.
the so-called 'engines' could be using much of the same programming too.
Are subject to foibles of human programmers.
Clue: computers improve because the human programmers improve - not just because the computer-power improves.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I vaguely recall an argument here about 'nodes'.
tygxc (I believe it was him) got much much mileage out of 'nodes per second' instead of 'operations per second'' then there was 'issue' over defining a 'node'.
Haahahahah.
'Holding up' based on invoking a word.
He realized he could 'hold up' that way.
Folks - understand what you're up against if you want to 'beat up on tygxc' ... he knows what he's doing.
Note that unlike people at the opposite extreme like the O-creature and BC - tygxc has zero need to get personal.
Unlike those two tygxc is not fragile and delicate.
BC he has zero need to get personal
Nether do you by bringing every single person's but yourselfs up🤧
Don't bring up other people problems by personally insulting them and just answer a question
Unlike those two he is not fragile and delicate.
Your more fragile than the rest of us at least tygxc optimissed and me can all answer a question 🫢
Btw just an fyi please remain on topic playerafar anyone with two brain cells(I'm sorry if you can't lol pls don't judge ) can tell that your doing something
I think I might just ignore the rest of his posts....
dearest Topic Poster please block me from this Thread oh wait you cant you closed youre accont
dearest Topic Poster please block me from this Thread oh wait you cant you closed youre accont
Just unfollow the thread.
Kay dude.
dearest Topic Poster please block me from this Thread oh wait you cant you closed youre accont
Just unfollow the thread.
Ok
The mathematician doesn't need to think and sometimes can't think.
Gives off "anyone dumber than me is an id!ot, anyone smarter than me is crazy" vibes.
I haven't been reading this topic, but I assume tygxc has been repeating the same nonsense he was 1 year ago...
"when two grandmasters play a game, it's a draw, therefore chess is solved and we have many perfect games as examples"
Meanwhile optimissed is similarly repeating "you guys are dumb and bullies and... wait which topic is this again? Well whichever it is I'm right once again"
Fairly close - but 'O' always foolishly angry when he's not 'at the center' with his new boy BC constantly 'vying' for same.
"YES PLAYERAFAR PEOPLE LOVE TO SIMP ON YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE EMONTIONALY WEEK DEFENENTLY NOT JUST THEY LIKE TO ARGUE AND ANNOY TROLLS LIKE YOU 😭😭☺️😭☺️☺️😭☺️"
YOU ARE COMPETLY RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU SO THERE IS NOT A WORLD WERE YOU COULD BE WRONG
I'm posting this since I saw someone delete it .I hate trolls that delete there own comments is this relatable for you?
IF NOT
If you look at the arguments of people like Dio and Elroch, they tend to argue in the exact same way. They give a bad example or a bad argument and to them, the lack of a counter-example means they won, even if no-one actually took them on. So it's hypocritical to pick on the arguments of the side of the discussion you're opposed to and to criticise them for the very same errors those arguing on your side make.
Actually, the two sides are polar-opposed. Neither is realistic. Whilst tygxc places too much faith in whatever test-games are actually being played at the time and claims they offer perfect information, the people who wrongly believe that chess is a game of perfect info weirdly support a mathematical solution argument. It's weird because a mathematical solution is impossible, at least for the present. It's as far removed from reality as a strong solution of chess is removed from reality. But as I pointed out, chess cannot be regarded as a game of perfect info since it HASN'T been solved, which means that the so-called perfect info is in code.
Possibly you aren't yet mature enough as a person to address these points, since I haven't seen you address them yet and I've certainly given a more accurate overview of the nature of the problem than anyone else I've noticed.
Let's see if you can actually make it a day or two without having bring up your obsession with Elroch or myself out of left field. It would definitely improve your credibility here. I'm pretty sure there's not a lot of people thinking we, or anybody else for that matter, seem to argue like Tygxc. He's a special snowflake.