W topic, i support you
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
ardutgamersus wrote:
W topic, i support you
There's one other troll we are forgetting to mention besides optimized but other than that pretty accurate
May 26, 2024
0
#10224
honestly optimissed seems ok to me (i only read post #10465 from him) but i have seen @tygxc here since i first entered this forum and oh boy does this man need therapy. and if you can’t afford it then develop a brain, dude. chess.com is not a site for arguing. 4chan, discord, reddit and the likes of them are so go there and cease your mindless babbling.
May 26, 2024
0
#10226
DiogenesDue wrote:
I trust most posters can see the futility of listening to someone that keeps changing their mind based on how much he dislikes his opposition.
When you have proof based on your personal standards and observations that you are one of the 10 most brilliant and capable thinkers on the planet, ANY opposition can be taken as prima facie evidence of the critics' incapability, psychosis, and/or evil intent.
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
tygxc wrote:
"Nobody has ever agreed with your 10^17"
++ I tried to explain as clearly as I could. If people fail to understand, it is not my fault.
I trusted the mathematicians back then and disbelieved you. Now I don't so if you can find the explanation I'll read it again. You may have quick access to it, rather than me looking for an hour.
I trust most posters can see the futility of listening to someone that keeps changing their mind based on how much he dislikes his opposition.
I think you've got it the wrong way round. I agree with people I agree with and explain my reasoning to those I disagree with. You dislike people who disagree with you. End.
May 26, 2024
0
#10229
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
tygxc wrote:
"Nobody has ever agreed with your 10^17"
++ I tried to explain as clearly as I could. If people fail to understand, it is not my fault.
I trusted the mathematicians back then and disbelieved you. Now I don't so if you can find the explanation I'll read it again. You may have quick access to it, rather than me looking for an hour.
I trust most posters can see the futility of listening to someone that keeps changing their mind based on how much he dislikes his opposition.
I think you've got it the wrong way round. I agree with people I agree with and explain my reasoning to those I disagree with. You dislike people who disagree with you. End.
“i agree with people i agree with” yeah, and how often do these people change? as stated by dio (who, as you can see, does not change sides, hence having more support from me then you), you change sides like the italians in ww2: when it isn’t going your way, you just decide to switch
May 26, 2024
0
#10230
and dont go around tryna lecture me with “that wasnt why the italians surrenderred” i know why they surrenderred, and this just so happens to be a reason
Optimissed wrote:
I think you've got it the wrong way round. I agree with people I agree with and explain my reasoning to those I disagree with. You dislike people who disagree with you. End.
No, you agree with people that agree with you, but only so long as they continue to agree with you. The problem, as other people but not yourself can imagine, is that this behavior is not distinguishable from someone that doesn't listen to anyone but themselves. The difference is not meaningful, and so these behaviors/viewpoints are functionally the same.
You seem to be saying that I'm indistinguishable from you but I take strong exception to such an accusation.
Anyway you just make things up to sound like you want them to sound.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
the terms of "ultra weakly solved, weakly solved, strongly solved" are all well defined and require rigorous proof. most of the disagreement comes from the fact that people do not understand the terms properly, or do not understand the rigor required for the proof.
The terms were introduced by games theorists. They have no connection to "solving chess" since the so-called strong solution is known to be impossible, so what are you talking about?
You can't prove a definition, by the way. A definition is a descriptive meaning that is applied to a name.
This sounds like you think the relevant meaning is the vague imprecise one in common English (where words are defined based on other words which very often have imprecise meanings themselves). It is not. The relevant meaning is that of a definition in the mathematical sciences, based on axioms and other definitions that could in principle be processed by a computer in the same way as they are by a human reasoning about the subject.
A definition is an unambiguous description of an abstract entity (or property of such entities, etc.) that could in principle be implemented in a computer with complete clarity.
If you keep listening to Elroch, you are not going to learn a thing.
Says the guy who has failed to repair such failings in his own understanding.
You are not worth taking seriously, Elroch. You and I have had many differences of opinion and thay have all been founded on your inability to understand words when there are too many of them in a line for you to take in.
Optimissed wrote:
You seem to be saying that I'm indistinguishable from you but I take strong exception to such an accusation.
This is just part of your malady...to only be capable of seeing fault outside yourself.
Basically, you are incapable of discerning meaning in anything you superficially agree with. Neither are you capable of thinking in a focussed and constructive manner. You are stuck regarding this subject, with no useful thoughts on it at all and an incapability of improving that situation.
Even if you had half a brain, you might be less at a disadvantage regarding your inability to understand anything you haven't been spoon fed. You're well known for it.
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
You seem to be saying that I'm indistinguishable from you but I take strong exception to such an accusation.
This is just part of your malady...to only be capable of seeing fault outside yourself.
Because you are at fault and Elroch is at fault. It isn't a big deal. Neither of you are very bright. You fall back on your very conservative reactions and opinions which are never to challenge authority and, well, so does Elroch in a slightly different manner. It means that you cannot understand anything you haven't been taught. I'm not losing sleep over it.
May 26, 2024
0
#10238
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
the terms of "ultra weakly solved, weakly solved, strongly solved" are all well defined and require rigorous proof. most of the disagreement comes from the fact that people do not understand the terms properly, or do not understand the rigor required for the proof.
The terms were introduced by games theorists. They have no connection to "solving chess" since the so-called strong solution is known to be impossible, so what are you talking about?
You can't prove a definition, by the way. A definition is a descriptive meaning that is applied to a name.
This sounds like you think the relevant meaning is the vague imprecise one in common English (where words are defined based on other words which very often have imprecise meanings themselves). It is not. The relevant meaning is that of a definition in the mathematical sciences, based on axioms and other definitions that could in principle be processed by a computer in the same way as they are by a human reasoning about the subject.
A definition is an unambiguous description of an abstract entity (or property of such entities, etc.) that could in principle be implemented in a computer with complete clarity.
If you keep listening to Elroch, you are not going to learn a thing.
Says the guy who has failed to repair such failings in his own understanding.
You are not worth taking seriously, Elroch. You and I have had many differences of opinion and thay have all been founded on your inability to understand words when there are too many of them in a line for you to take in.
well then explain them well enough so that not only you understand it in your mind, but elroch and others as well. using long and complicated words may confuse some people so don’t go around insulting them, this just proves you want to argue with someone you already think of as lower than you
May 26, 2024
0
#10240
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
You seem to be saying that I'm indistinguishable from you but I take strong exception to such an accusation.
This is just part of your malady...to only be capable of seeing fault outside yourself.
Because you are at fault and Elroch is at fault. It isn't a big deal. Neither of you are very bright. You fall back on your very conservative reactions and opinions which are never to challenge authority and, well, so does Elroch in a slightly different manner. It means that you cannot understand anything you haven't been taught. I'm not losing sleep over it.
i feel like i have to point this out… dio said you are only capable of seeing fault outside yourself, and with the next message, you just proved his theory, which means that as much as you try to defend yourself you believe you are perfect which if i am not mistaken is the definiton of narcissism.
what kinda beef is going on here
basically, its 3-4 normal people (me, elroch, MAR, and the occasional fourth person), trying to get a pseudo-troll (optimissed) and a guy who doesnt understand logic (tygxc) to shut up.