ive always felt more slavey than mistress. not sure why. id rather be led than followed i guess. louzy in leadership me
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
chess has been solved by my toaster bro yall don't understand
u needta ease up on the pop tarts there
you actually claimed (twice!) that you could write a program to represent chess mathematically.
yeah. lets see what that coconut a urs is made a.
i like how deep tygxc goes...he took me somewhere w/ 12790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P2kzzL1LR4
playerafar wrote:
Elroch wrote:
@Optimissed sometimes fantasises that either all the people who disagree with him are alts of some single Nemesis, or that there are secret cabal meetings to co-ordinate the imagined war against him.
And since Optimissed constantly projects (constantly dishonestly accuses others of being and doing what he does) that suggests that its Optimissed who is using alts.
He's far too ham-handed to pull off that type of subterfuge for any length of time.
'Solving' chess is such a stupid concept. Yesterday I have won a game playing against a bot. Since the game has reached an end, I therefore have 'solved' chess.
Raka_Orion wrote:
'Solving' chess is such a stupid concept. Yesterday I have won a game playing against a bot. Since the game has reached an end, I therefore have 'solved' chess.
Lots of people that don't understand things label them as "stupid" in order to cope.
Jun 24, 2024
0
#9689
DiogenesDue wrote:
Raka_Orion wrote:
'Solving' chess is such a stupid concept. Yesterday I have won a game playing against a bot. Since the game has reached an end, I therefore have 'solved' chess.
Lots of people that don't understand things label them as "stupid" in order to cope.
dio, a reminder that the guy you are responding to isnt tygxc or optimissed and you should not treat them with the same bluntness/dismissiveness.
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Raka_Orion wrote:
'Solving' chess is such a stupid concept. Yesterday I have won a game playing against a bot. Since the game has reached an end, I therefore have 'solved' chess.
Lots of people that don't understand things label them as "stupid" in order to cope.
dio, a reminder that the guy you are responding to isnt tygxc or optimissed and you should not treat them with the same bluntness/dismissiveness.
Playerafar has already gone down that path don't do the same thing
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Raka_Orion wrote:
'Solving' chess is such a stupid concept. Yesterday I have won a game playing against a bot. Since the game has reached an end, I therefore have 'solved' chess.
Lots of people that don't understand things label them as "stupid" in order to cope.
dio, a reminder that the guy you are responding to isnt tygxc or optimissed and you should not treat them with the same bluntness/dismissiveness.
Playerafar has already gone down that path don't do the same thing
Dismissiveness is the appropriate response to a dismissive post. You'll note that I have not been any more dismissive than the poster, since I am mirroring their own criticism back. I'm always measured in my responses.
You two are newbies here...so keep things in perspective. You will not be able to modify behaviors on either side of the aisle, especially for well established posters. Show, don't tell.
tygxc wrote:
My proposal to weakly solve Chess is to use SF to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base.
Fun fact: The ICCF does this. If a position is reached where Syzygy tablebase shows a win for White and White claims it, the game ends right then and there 1-0 and vice versa for Black.
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
tygxc wrote:
My proposal to weakly solve Chess is to use SF to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base.
Fun fact: The ICCF does this. If a position is reached where Syzygy tablebase shows a win for White and White claims it, the game ends right then and there 1-0 and vice versa for Black.
Fun fact: running an imperfect engine and trying to bridge to a tablebase is not a proof of anything and is irrelevant to solving chess.
This facet of ICCF play is integral to Tygxc's faulty premises, so it's not news to anyone here.
Jun 24, 2024
0
#9694
DiogenesDue wrote:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Raka_Orion wrote:
'Solving' chess is such a stupid concept. Yesterday I have won a game playing against a bot. Since the game has reached an end, I therefore have 'solved' chess.
Lots of people that don't understand things label them as "stupid" in order to cope.
dio, a reminder that the guy you are responding to isnt tygxc or optimissed and you should not treat them with the same bluntness/dismissiveness.
Playerafar has already gone down that path don't do the same thing
Dismissiveness is the appropriate response to a dismissive post. You'll note that I have not been any more dismissive than the poster, since I am mirroring their own criticism back. I'm always measured in my responses.
You two are newbies here...so keep things in perspective. You will not be able to modify behaviors on either side of the aisle, especially for well established posters. Show, don't tell.
just because they are dismissive in an initial post doesnt mean that they will be dismissive in the future. their dismissiveness is only based on the knowledge that they have, not necessarily based on their willingness to new information.
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
just because they are dismissive in an initial post doesnt mean that they will be dismissive in the future. their dismissiveness is only based on the knowledge that they have, not necessarily based on their willingness to new information.
...and they will have an opportunity to post again and not be dismissive. No harm, no foul. They made a pointed observation, they got a pointed observation back. Learning by trial and error in action.
Optimissed wrote:
He doesn't realise you're a psychopath.
So he thinks it's ok for you to respond to me the way you do because he knows we disagree a lot and he doesn't understand what you are and that you would create a snowball fight in hell if it got rid of some of your angst. They're notoriously ineffective btw.
Lol. This is not about you or your delusions. Your narcissism knows no bounds.
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
He doesn't realise you're a psychopath.
So he thinks it's ok for you to respond to me the way you do because he knows we disagree a lot and he doesn't understand what you are and that you would create a snowball fight in hell if it got rid of some of your angst. They're notoriously ineffective btw.
Lol. This is not about you or your delusions. Your narcissism knows no bounds.
OK, given that narcissism is a well-known facet of pychopathy, can you explain why you think I'm narcissistic, whereas I'm not the psychopath? Is it perhaps because you disagree with me a lot?
The answer is remarkably simple. I'm not a psychopath. That's just in your head.
Optimissed wrote:
So I'm narcissistic because you claim not to be a psychopath?
You know, I was aware it was going to be quite a display of creative writing but somehow, the dots don't join themselves. You CLAIM you're not one and you've been calling various people narcissistic as long as I've known you and it's a known thing that psychopaths project and psychopaths are narcissistic. Never mind, let's say that I accept your explanation without reservation. Well done!!
Your first statement does not follow. Connecting dots in ways that are counter to reality seems to be your thing.
Optimissed wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuiMQPc5aKA
Round about 1972/73 I was a very good disco dancer. A lot better than these girls, whose timing isn't quite right. Once I remember the entire disco has stopped and there was just a couple of hundred people watching me. Sortly after that I was invided several times to go to Wigan Casino. They told me it would be a knock-out and I would be the best dancer there. Weird that after hich-hiking to India for eight or nine months, moving back to Northumberland, living in London for four years, being married, I ended up in Wigan, owning a record shop there and I still never danced at Wigan Casino. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuiMQPc5aKA
Is that narcissism or maybe it's just a good memory of the 80s. Yes, I think it's that. Just because someone is better than you are everything that doesn't make them narcissistic. Makes you a clod.
Quoting for posterity, Mr. Travolta...and yes, that is narcissism (at least when you add it to your supposedly being the best at everything you talk about). Disco? Really?
@12882
"The ICCF does this. If a position is reached where Syzygy tablebase shows a win for White and White claims it, the game ends right then and there 1-0 and vice versa for Black."
++ Yes, but table base win claims do not happen in ICCF World Championship finals,
only table base draw claims.
Even win claims that exceed the 50 moves drawing rule are acceptable, but never happen.
The 112 draws out of 112 ICCF WC finals games thus provide an ultra-weak solution to Chess: the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
That is in line with the initiative being a white advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn, not enough to win and each further move diluting the advantage.
The 112 draws constitute at least part of a weak solution of Chess and redundantly so.
The games represent 10^17 positions considered and 90*17*2*2 = 6120 CPU years.
Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers considering 10^14 positions and 50*2=100 CPU years.
Before I log off ...
another invalid beginning by O.
Nobody 'must'. He has no authority.
Skipped the rest of that too.