"++ Then you talked to the wrong math majors."
ive been actively looking bro. not a single person agrees with you. I just talked to another today, he laughed at you and said that you have no idea what rigor is required for proof. so, please find me the right math major. and no, random quotes taken out of context dont count.
@9458
"brought up to published mathematicians"
++ What published mathematicians? Where are their comments?
@9459
"not a single person agrees with you"
++ Their fault, not mine. I try to patiently explain as clearly as I can, but that is all I can do.
@9458
"brought up to published mathematicians"
++ What published mathematicians? Where are their comments?
im a math major at a university do you not think i have access to published mathematicians?
they completely agreed with everything (pertaining to mathematical proof) that ive said, and while they were much more polite about it, they basically called you [not intelligent] and in serious need of basic math proof education.
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
bro calls the difference between an analysis and a full proof "weasel words"
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
bro calls the difference between an analysis and a full proof "weasel words"
I 100% wouldn't trust Fischer on anything. Good player but too many buts.
Wait long squash got muted
Sadness
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
bro calls the difference between an analysis and a full proof "weasel words"
I 100% wouldn't trust Fischer on anything. Good player but too many buts.
LOL i needed that, thank you.
I can't tell if I agree or disagree with tygxc since he won't answer my questions. I want a game with 1. g4 ... d5 2. e3
Didn't he get muted cause he went to far talking about racism ?
Wait long squash got muted
Sadness
yeah, I miss his nonsense tbh. tygxc's nonsense is not as interesting
could you give me some recommendations for long squash moments?
Maybe the instine buda,Elon on chess=useless
lol lexiii
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
bro calls the difference between an analysis and a full proof "weasel words"
The weasel words: "all of the posts in this forum strongly suggest that @tygxc doesn't know what it means to solve a game"
The elite GM version: "@tygxc definitely doesn't know what it means to solve a game"
@9470
"I want a game with 1. g4 ... d5 2. e3"
++ See @9415
It's a difference of approach only.
The ultra-weak method is too much rule of thumb but neither do you solve chess by trying to look at all the continuations. That takes millions of years.
There has to be an algorithmically based happy medium. The dynamic structure of chess has to be analysed so as to recognise critical positions which can tip the game one way or the other. It's no use treating every possible position as a potentially critical one in that way.
So better algorithms, which are nearly completely trustworthy, are necessary for us to be able to state that a position is winning or losing with, say, 99.9% confidence. I do not think achieving a genuine 100% confidence is even hypothetically possible. So would 99.9% be reasonable? One in a thousand engine judgements being mistaken? If not, then if 100% confidence is impossible, what level is acceptable?
@9470
"I want a game with 1. g4 ... d5 2. e3"
++ See @9415
I just looked. I do have a criticism because I think 10. Nxe6 may have been a positional mistake. I tried 10. Ncb5 instead. I've a feeling that white's moves were governed in that game by those that seemed to get the best short-term score on the analysis engine. So, because there wasn't an obvious move for white at that point, it made a positional error.
@9447
"i havent found a single one that agrees with literally any of your disagreements with me"
++ Then you talked to the wrong math majors.
"how about you go talk to a mathematician" ++ I know more math than your majors.
funny how you refuse to provide your math education, nor do you address how its literally brought up to published mathematicians.