I mean, he is right. Strategy stealing is not valid in chess. But not becaus chess is complex
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8644
Optimissed wrote:
Regarding the strategy stealing arguments, ...
It IS transpositional strategy and there's no need to introduce Games Theory terminology where it's only going to cause confusion. ...
There's no need for the argument that chess is drawn by good play on either side to rely on this kind of foreign, deliberately and deceptively specialised terminology, since "strategy stealing" is merely transpositional strategy. ...
It is very strange that you should think inventing your own terms without defining them leads to better clarity.
Anyone who doesn't understand the term "strategy stealing" can look it up.
I don't know what "transpositional strategy" is. You don't tell me, and when I look it up I can't find it.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Regarding the strategy stealing arguments, ...
It IS transpositional strategy and there's no need to introduce Games Theory terminology where it's only going to cause confusion. ...
There's no need for the argument that chess is drawn by good play on either side to rely on this kind of foreign, deliberately and deceptively specialised terminology, since "strategy stealing" is merely transpositional strategy. ...
It is very strange that you should think inventing your own terms without defining them leads to better clarity.
Anyone who doesn't understand the term "strategy stealing" can look it up.
I don't know what "transpositional strategy" is. You don't tell me, and when I look it up I can't find it.
Why strive to understand things when you can just make up the meanings as you go along? So much easier... 
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8646
Optimissed wrote:
Regarding the strategy stealing arguments, I would suggest that it is intuitively clear that they must count for nothing in a game so complex as chess. If it can be stolen by one side it can be stolen by the other and all it really consists of is transpositional strategy.
It IS transpositional strategy and there's no need to introduce Games Theory terminology where it's only going to cause confusion. There's no need for the argument that chess is drawn by good play on either side to rely on this kind of foreign, deliberately and deceptively specialised terminology, since "strategy stealing" is merely transpositional strategy.
It's as if you don't even realise you are randomly manipulating undefined ideas in a way that merely superficially resembles real facts. Like a bad LLM.
But now that I think about it, I am being unfair. If P is a false statement, all implications from it are true. For example:
"IF elephants have seven legs then the Riemann Hypothesis is true"
is a 100% correct statement. Likewise your enlarged text is correct. And just as useful.
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8647
mrhjornevik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Regarding the strategy stealing arguments, I would suggest that it is intuitively clear that they must count for nothing in a game so complex as chess. If it can be stolen by one side it can be stolen by the other and all it really consists of is transpositional strategy.
Its weird that you have been in this discusion for 2 years and still dont understand why strategy stealing is not a valid argument in chess.
Why dont you explain what you mean by "chess being complex" ?
would like to clarify that the initial person who claimed that there was a strategy stealing argument was tygxc. i proved that such an argument could not exist, (which tygxc could not properly understand, and so tygxc then just ignored it) and I was reminding tygxc (and the others) that that was a fact that was unaddressed by tygxc, optimissed picked up the train of thought after.
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8648
How about this description of strategy stealing?
Strategy stealing is a map f from the set of strategies for player A to the set of strategies for player B, where if V(S) is the value of a strategy for its proponent,
V(f(S)) >= V(S) for all S
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8649
Elroch wrote:
How about this description of strategy stealing?
Strategy stealing is a map f from the set of strategies for player A to the set of strategies for player B, where if V(S) is the value of a strategy for its proponent,
V(f(S)) >= V(S) for all S
Don't like it.
Take basic rules chess without the resignation rule and with this starting position instead
Lat A be White and B be Black. Let f map all White strategies to the Black strategy "play 1...Rh1#".
Then V(f(S))>=V(S) for any White strategy S (actually >). What connection is there with strategy stealing? Who's stealing what?
(In fact any map from the strategies for A to the strategies for B satisfies V(f(S))>=V(S).)
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8651
MARattigan wrote:
Elroch wrote:
How about this description of strategy stealing?
Strategy stealing is a map f from the set of strategies for player A to the set of strategies for player B, where if V(S) is the value of a strategy for its proponent,
V(f(S)) >= V(S) for all S
Don't like it.
Take basic rules chess without the resignation rule and with this starting position instead
Lat A be White and B be Black. Let f map all White strategies to the Black strategy "play 1...Rh1#".
Then V(f(S))>=V(S) for any White strategy S (actually >). What connection is there with strategy stealing? Who's stealing what?
(In fact any map from the strategies for A to the strategies for B satisfies V(f(S))>=V(S).)
they didnt claim that the mapping is accurate to chess, after all you cant strategy steal chess.
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8652
MARattigan is correct that my definition is a lot more general than intended. But this is so in a harmless way. To explain what I mean by that:
- all the usual examples of strategy stealing satisfy my definition
- If you have a map that meets my definition, it permits the strategy stealing argument (whose conclusion is that the value of the game can't be worse for the the stealer than the victim).
So it is an abstraction that encompasses all strategy stealing examples and provides as much usefulness, but happens to be much more general. For example, if you already happen to know a winning strategy for the potential stealer, you get a generalisation of MARattigan's perceptive example. This is harmless.
Of course, I understand that the appeal of definitions is subjective, but there is no practical downside.
The positive motivation is that it identifies the precise property of strategy stealing that makes the method work. "Anything you can do, I can do better". I think there's a song about that.
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8653
Optimissed wrote:
Strategy stealing is a map f from the set of strategies for player A to the set of strategies for player B, where if V(S) is the value of a strategy for its proponent,
V(f(S)) >= V(S) for all S
I mean, this kind of thing is drivel imo.
I was able to predict your (worthless) response almost exactly!
[Also you've never had a humble opinion in your life].
Optimissed wrote:
I'm saying that strategy stealing isn't valid for the reasons I gave. I'm not very interested in the opinions of many others unless they're good. How many people here are good? Too many don't give proper reasoning for anything but expect people to believe them and too many experts in the field don't seem to have much of a clue either. Someone isn't an expert just because someone here claims they are.
Lol. Speechless at the lack of self-awareness here...
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8655
Optimissed wrote:
Strategy stealing is transpositional play and nothing more than that.
Do enlighten us, wise one. What, perchance, is "transpositional play"?
erm hello
pg 576
lessgo
Optimissed wrote:
I know. You are possibly the least self-aware person on the entire site and your lack of it extends to constantly projecting your weakness onto others.
[and]
But then you wouldn't know you were doing that, would you, since you are quite possibly the least self-aware person not just on this thread but on the entire site.
I very often give very detailed reasoning for judgements and arguments. I have noticed that although many people appreciate my ability to do so, you don't seem to have the brains to understand arguments so you imagine they don't exist and that the words are just for show. That's because you have never been seen to have given a well-reasoned argument for anything, ever, because you simply don't do that, since making personal attacks on others seems to work so well for you.
You're not helping your own cause here. You just look like you went crazy, got muted for 72 hours, then came back just as crazy.
Jun 6, 2024
0
#8660
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I know. You are possibly the least self-aware person on the entire site and your lack of it extends to constantly projecting your weakness onto others.
[and]
But then you wouldn't know you were doing that, would you, since you are quite possibly the least self-aware person not just on this thread but on the entire site.
I very often give very detailed reasoning for judgements and arguments. I have noticed that although many people appreciate my ability to do so, you don't seem to have the brains to understand arguments so you imagine they don't exist and that the words are just for show. That's because you have never been seen to have given a well-reasoned argument for anything, ever, because you simply don't do that, since making personal attacks on others seems to work so well for you.
You're not helping your own cause here. You just look like you went crazy, got muted for 72 hours, then came back just as crazy.
"Look like" seems redundant.
Regarding the strategy stealing arguments, I would suggest that it is intuitively clear that they must count for nothing in a game so complex as chess. If it can be stolen by one side it can be stolen by the other and all it really consists of is transpositional strategy.
Its weird that you have been in this discusion for 2 years and still dont understand why strategy stealing is not a valid argument in chess.
Why dont you explain what you mean by "chess being complex" ?
He has also made 2000 posts and gotten nowhere dont forget that he just gives the allusion that he is