I don't see dio pretending to be sane but ok
He just isn't very good at it but he does try hard, bless him.
I think he means that I don't need to pretend to be sane, I'm just sane. You'd be hard pressed to find anything in my posts to demonstrate otherwise. You talk a lot, but your diagnoses and insults are just overreaching, which shows right through when you try to fling spaghetti and it doesn't stick...
This site is full of people defending their positions. The anti-climate-alarmists, the climate alarmists even more so than the antis. Elroch pretending to be the master of all knowledge, Dio and player pretending to be sane. Dio reminds me of a corrupt cop and player just needs more largactyl because meditation can't help him. tygxc with his "expertise".
I really prefer talking to the kids but they can be boring. Even lpg is defending anti-alarmism more than I've seen her do before. I imagine the impending elections have politicised her. RATMAR is defending his territory, which is here and always has been. mpaetz is defending his gradual decline. Ghostess won't emerge from Elroch's threads even though she hates him and Dio with a vengeance. It's all very strange.
You're running a soap opera in your head every day...you missed your calling, I think.
When O makes a claim whether by his deceit or his delusions - usually the exact opposite of his claim is the real situation.
And yes - O is so delicate that people 'wind him up' without even intending to and without responding to him or referring to him or his posts at all - even indirectly.
For example just BC conversing with other people in the forum - ignoring O - bothers O considerably.
-----------------------------------------
BC works hard to centralize himself in the forum and the more BC does that the more that upsets O. Which is ridiculous pathetic behaviour by O going on ten years here now.
And O is @Optimissed of course.
BC has his own issues though.
And one of them is - other people showing confidence and having education and being factually and logically correct about whatever.
In other words BC has a problem similiar to O's problem.
BC knows he has a problem - but gets it dead wrong as to what it is.
He hides behind his admission that he is 'not smart' most of the time.
Fails to qualify between humility and his self-doubt problems.
BC confuses confidence with conceit.
Constantly. Plus believes that others should address confidence in the erroneous way that he does. Reminds me of somebody on the site named Limehouse who often went nuts when people handle things in ways he doesn't.
BC is most likely in the 19 to 23 years age range because that fits best but that could be way off.
hides behind his admission that he is 'not smart' most of the time. //That was sarcasm lol
Fails to qualify between humility and his self-doubt problems.
I have both (some humility) and some self doubt (anxiety ) ... Usually I just say I'm not sure when I'm actually not sure about something though
Is the subject of 'solving chess' a debatable subject?
The short answer is yes.
Even though its kind of obvious that computers can't do it - and tygxc has already conceded that point - a concession here by tygxc that many here have missed.
That concession by tygxc is probably his most significant post in the forum.
So I keep mentioning it because its overlooked by many.
Subject of 'debatable'.
Over in the 'climate Hoax' forum the subject of monkeys in Mexico dying from effects of manmade global warming is being discussed and somebody there who usually just trolls actually made an argument!
Silver posted that many bats die in electricity-generating windmills ....
Its a legitimate 'talking point'.
And many birds die flying into the intakes of fossil-fuel airliner jet engines too.
Yes I'll post that there ...
--------------------------------------
but Point:
'Solving chess' is a debatable subject and can be debated here because chess and chessplaying and views on chess can also be debated here and are.
There are many debating points and talking points and tygxc legitimately uses such talking points to continue discussion.
In other words he is not 'trolling'.
The fact that he is often wrong and obtusely ignores proofs patiently given by others is stubborn - but doesn't constitute trolling per se.
I believe he is often toying with those who get exasperated with him - demonstrating that he'll keep his emotional cool while they lose it and blow up.
@10881
"The scenario is that player A underpromotes because it is the only way to win.
If he promoted to a queen, the route to the win that would work after the underpromotion happens to be blocked by a statemate."
++ So we have a position won for A. If A promotes to a queen, then a draw by stalemate results. So A avoids the draw by stalemate by underpromoting to a rook or even a bishop and still retains a won position. So B has a lost position.
Then there is no reason for B to underpromote to a rook or bishop.
@10955
"computers can't do it"
++ Present computers cannot strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base of 10^44 positions,
but present computers can weakly solve Chess, like Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers.
The 17 ICCF World Championship finalists with their computers are now about there:
106 draws out of 106 games, and whatever white tries, not one but several lines draw for black.
@10879
"a correct interpretation"
Demanding calculated trees for
Is not a correct, but a stupid interpretation. We know those are losses for white. That is elementary game knowledge. It does not even take an ICCF (grand)master to see that.
Likewise it is unnecessary to analyse 1 a4. If black can draw against the best moves
1 e4, 1 d4, 1 Nf3, 1 c4, then a fortiori black can draw against the lesser moves like 1 a4.
Likewise by pure logic we can dismiss outright 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1.
It still draws for white, as white can afford to lose 2 tempi,
but it does not oppose to black achieving the game-theoretic value.
tygxc - its too late. You've already conceded. Yes you want to keep 'qualifying that' but the irony there is you act like you don't realize you 'did right' by conceding. Lol!
--------------------------------------
Regarding BC - the fact that Dio keeps exposing O's constant falsehoods over and over again ... is not 'trash-talking'.
Dio's posts constantly exposing and rebuking @Optimissed and refuting O's constant illogic and delusions ... are Righteous.
This goes completely over BC's head. Week in week out.
He doesn't get it and isn't going to probably.
He's now 'too invested' and will keep doubling down on his error and try to keep pushing crassly false equivalencies between Dio and the O-person.
---------------------------------------------
Yes BC is probably in the 19 to 23 age range. A very young adult.
And hasn't yet discovered that experience counts.
He probably doesn't grasp that six years from now he'll probably know more about life than he does now. That his world-view will probably improve.
He probably gets it why 13 year olds aren't allowed to drive.
But probably completely doesn't get it why people under 35 aren't allowed to be president of the US. A lot of countries require 35. Some require 40.
Point: BC wouldn't understand this.
Sometimes - this blindness peaks with 25 year old males.
-------------------------------------
Regarding introspection ...
Introspection is an imperfect activity.
One would go insane if one tried to introspect every single thought and action.
Humanity evolved and survived by having subconscious minds with various positions being insidious.
But that doesn't mean one shouldn't introspect from time to time.
Even though it'll often be inaccurate and will always be incomplete.
@10960
"You've already conceded"
++ You still do not understand that there are 3 kinds of solving: strongly, weakly, ultra-weakly.
One is not more real than the other. One is not needed for the other.
Hex has been ultra-weakly solved, neither weakly, nor strongly.
Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers, not strongly.
Strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions is beyond present technology, but weakly solving Chess is viable and the ICCF WC Finals is now about there: 106 perfect games without errors, all draws.
@10955
"computers can't do it"
++ Present computers cannot strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base of 10^44 positions,
but present computers can weakly solve Chess, like Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers.
The 17 ICCF World Championship finalists with their computers are now about there:
106 draws out of 106 games, and whatever white tries, not one but several lines draw for black.
obligatory correction: tygxc's calculations are incorrect by a factor of over a million, today's computers cannot weakly solve chess.
@10962
"today's computers cannot weakly solve chess"
++ They can and they do.
ICCF World Championship Finals: 106 draws out of 106 games after 500 years of CPU time.
@tygsc, if you redefine weakly solving chess as "playing a game of chess against another computer", today's computers can weakly solve chess. But if you use the definition understood by all those who have published peer-reviewed papers on the topic, today's computers definitely cannot weakly solve chess.
So you can keep using the language wrongly and creating noise, while the rest of us will continue to refer to those who are competent.
To be perfectly blunt, is your level of understanding of interpreting empirical data so abysmal that you don't understand that 106 draws do not preclude the possibility that, say, 1 in 200 games between the two players would be decisive?
This is not a rhetorical question.
If you can get to where you understand that, you can move on the equally simple fact about interpreting empirical data that if you have a class of 1,000,000 positions where one player surprisingly gives up a piece and the other player has a forced win (pretend we know that), that does not preclude the possibility that in 1 in 1,000,000,000 such positions the other player wins.
The bottom line is that no such imprecise inference is permitted in any weak solution. Any use of such incompetent methods would not allow a paper on the subject to get past peer review.
Can you remind us, how many peer-reviewed papers have you published on the subject? Are you aware of any peer-reviewed papers that use the same incorrect methods as yourself?
..... those who are competent."
That's me. I pointed out years ago that weakly solving a la definition is a kind of variation on strongly solving. I had noticed that the so-called competent people HERE seemed to have been talking for a year or more about a situation where "best moves" pop out of a hat. I pointed out that you have to do the equivalent of a limited strong solution on each move, to find the best rejoinders. The belief seemed to be that you needed to analyse from one side only.
This was a very clear signal that the definitions are not fit for purpose, since they confused everyone else discussing this, so far as I could see. It means that it certainly isn't tygxc's fault ... or at least, not his fault alone. I haven't seen all that much competence here from anyone overall. Elroch, if you could have avoided getting into pointless arguments with tygxc, that would have left only RATMAR to provide that diversion. Between the two of them, they used hundreds of posts, discussing, completely pointlessly, rule variations that are better applied to the solution after it's found, if it's found, rather than being applied to hypothetical methods of solving. This was nothing more than a useless and annoying distraction and it amply exemplifies why there's no progress to be made and no chance of educating people like MEGA, who is genuinely interested but as out of his depth as some others are here.
Trouble is, if Elroch went away and made another thread on the subject, I would be blocked and so equally there would be about zero chance of the rest of you making any progress.
..... those who are competent."
That's me. I pointed out years ago that weakly solving a la definition is a kind of variation on strongly solving.
Regrettably disproving the previous sentence.
The definition of strongly solving is that if you are presented with ANY chess position, you can return the value with optimal play of that position. By contrast a weak solution of chess provides you with no help for evaluating almost every possible position you could be presented with.
Both are precise, very different things.
from @Optimissed just now:
"..... those who are competent."
"That's me." from 'O'.
---------------------------------------------
Translation: the opposite is the case.
O is Not competent.
There's more than one 'keeper' from O.
'science is a belief system'
'if its an opinion it can't be inaccurate'
'vaccination weakens the immune system'.
O is anything but competent.
..... those who are competent."
That's me. I pointed out years ago that weakly solving a la definition is a kind of variation on strongly solving.
Regrettably disproving the previous sentence.
The definition of strongly solving is that if you are presented with ANY chess position, you can return the value with optimal play of that position. By contrast a weak solution of chess provides you with no help for evaluating almost every possible position you could be presented with.
Both are precise, very different things.
This is an indication of your own lack of understanding, Elroch. You're a stats expert. In effect it means that you're used to dealing with dead facts. I suppose you can't help your attempts at one-upmanship.
Let me put it another way. You were wrong and any competent person can understand my post.
Of course your language was characteristically vague and ambiguous (the opposite of mine). But on what planet would being able to give the value of a tiny fraction (say 10^30 out of 10^44 positions, 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 positions) be a "kind of variation" on being able to give the value of ANY position (the definition of a strong solution)?
Serious question (which you will dodge).
No it wasn't a new one and I told it before. The point was, I didn't have to do anything, did I. I mean, to wind you up. Basically, just so long as you go around telling people what sort of person you are, then you aren't going to be able to harm ththem.
Non-sequitur. I'm sure most posters can figure out who's wound up given the relative size and tone of our posts.