Alright gentlemen, you're not going to solve chess with these subpar insults.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
True
They are acting like chat gpt insults but on drugs
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
True
They are acting like chat gpt insults but on drugs
Interesting theory, we should ask chat gpt simulate meth use and see if the output will be similar to what is seen here.
I don't have chatgpt though lol
I don't think it is chat gpt chat gpt is too nice for that
Unless it might be one of those personality gpts that are insulting if it is it could be that
So you are using chatgpt
Well you know the saying
Two+two=5
Optimissed wrote:
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.
May 21, 2024
0
#7610
llama_l wrote:
"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 😭
May 21, 2024
0
#7612
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".
May 21, 2024
0
#7614
Optimissed wrote:
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.
May 21, 2024
0
#7615
Elroch wrote:
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
May 21, 2024
0
#7616
Optimissed wrote:
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
May 21, 2024
0
#7619
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@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.
It's just you. ChatGPT gives much more of an impression of making sense.
This is a typically excruciating example of @Optimist narcissistically thinking he can ignore the standard definition "game of perfect information", guess in a very muddled way what it might mean based on the use of the same words in non-technical English (entirely irrelevant), and then make a proclamation of no substance, and to think that he has contributed something useful to the discussion (excuse me, I mean boosted his reputation).
For those who are interested in discussing technical subjects rather than boosting their egos, such discussions start with the acceptance of standard terminology (requiring some study to fully understand exactly what it means) and then communicating using that terminology, acknowledging the state of knowledge in the peer-reviewed and secondary literature on the subject (on such subjects the technical quality of Wikipedia articles tends to be high enough to make them useful introductions, with plenty of pointers to other material).