Also I did set out a strategy for creating algorithms to solve the middle game, several years ago. The words I used may have been too long for you.
Now if only I could beat you in a middle game oh wait...
Are you saying we've played each other??
hello
has any beaver bowler ever tried to solve it w/a 16 square or 144 sq board ?...just wondering. as it might lead to s/t - or already has.
A liitle info on 4x4.
Also I did set out a strategy for creating algorithms to solve the middle game, several years ago. The words I used may have been too long for you.
Now if only I could beat you in a middle game oh wait...
Are you saying we've played each other??
Nah I'm too good to get you in random pool unfortenently
@Optimissed, I understand the relationship between chalk and cheese.
It is that chalk is chalk and cheese is cheese.
Likewise for science and mathematical propositions. They do not overlap.
This person is just the same.
Science has its rules and procedures. It consists of a systematic fixing of variables to discover relationships between them. Mathematics is an ideal too which is used to manipulate data in engineering and scientific projects among others, to render it into a useable mode. Yet neither depends on the other since science can be carried out with no more than simple arithmetic, as I pointed out.
Actually, there is an important point here. I hope someone has the interest to think on it.
The point is that mathematics is enormously useful in science, but strictly speaking the mathematical part - about what is abstractly true - is separate from the scientific part - applying the model to draw scientific conclusions.
For example, Fourier Theory is of enormous use in quantum mechanics. But the theory was developed long before the science even existed. Then there was a mature mathematical theory available to be applied (eg to infer the Uncertainty Principle).
But chess cannot be turned into a set of equations. Therefore, maths can have no bearing on solving chess, except statistically and tygxc's argument was statistically based.
Solving chess is a problem in combinatorial game theory. Mathematics in its broad sense is only of limited help because of the lack of generality and the arbitrariness of the problem. Thus there is less scope for clever deduction and more demand for heavy number crunching.
And statistics never helps get nearer a proof. The very best it can do is to give confidence in what needs to be proven.
@Optimissed, I understand the relationship between chalk and cheese.
It is that chalk is chalk and cheese is cheese.
Likewise for science and mathematical propositions. They do not overlap.
This person is just the same.
Science has its rules and procedures. It consists of a systematic fixing of variables to discover relationships between them. Mathematics is an ideal too which is used to manipulate data in engineering and scientific projects among others, to render it into a useable mode. Yet neither depends on the other since science can be carried out with no more than simple arithmetic, as I pointed out.
Actually, there is an important point here. I hope someone has the interest to think on it.
The point is that mathematics is enormously useful in science, but strictly speaking the mathematical part - about what is abstractly true - is separate from the scientific part - applying the model to draw scientific conclusions.
For example, Fourier Theory is of enormous use in quantum mechanics. But the theory was developed long before the science even existed. Then there was a mature mathematical theory available to be applied (eg to infer the Uncertainty Principle).
But chess cannot be turned into a set of equations. Therefore, maths can have no bearing on solving chess, except statistically and tygxc's argument was statistically based.
Solving chess is a problem in combinatorial game theory. Mathematics in its broad sense is only of limited help because of the lack of generality and the arbitrariness of the problem. Thus there is less scope for clever deduction and more demand for heavy number crunching.
And statistics never helps get nearer a proof. The very best it can do is to give confidence in what needs to be proven.
No it isn't. Maybe claiming that seems to validate your existence to you.
You dislike and mock correct claims that it is known that chess is a draw with a probability of trillions to one.
Then you claim that chess can only be solved by combinational games theory which itself consists of guesswork. Or should I say, educated guesswork?
You are therefore inconsistent. You are also wrong.
You and I have agreed with each other many times but also we have disagreed. Where we have disagreed, it has always seemed that you are missing or unable to understand some subtlety, which makes the point of disagreement more complex than you take it to be. It has happened so often that at first I put it down to lack of intelligence in you but perhaps it's intellectual laziness and complacency. Even so, your intellect is not to be trusted, by me and preferably (for you) not by yourself, either. Here, instead of the simple understanding, you are pushing a complex idea of games theory (excuse me ... combinational games theory) which cannot possibly yield the accuracy you demand of others.
Why? Because chess is not solved and therefore it cannot be depicted in theory. Therefore the theory cannot exist and is probably never going to exist. Therefore we must accept a scientific approach to solving chess.
You surround yourself with rather dumb people who hero worship you (they wouldn't if they were cleverer) and they wave their wings and gnash their teeth at people for you. And you entirely depend on them when you are trying to make bad arguments, as per usual.
There was no point. You're effectively a child who cannot construct even a meaningful critisism. I can't answer a point where it doesn't exist.
Average highschool level trashtalk
Thankyou, Diamond. When in Turkey, do as the Turks do, I often think. Otherwise, it will not be understood.
There was no point. You're effectively a child who cannot construct even a meaningful critisism. I can't answer a point where it doesn't exist.
Average highschool level trashtalk
Thankyou, Diamond. When in Turkey, do as the Turks do, I often think. Otherwise, it will not be understood.
If only I was a diamond I would be so much richer than I am now
Also I did set out a strategy for creating algorithms to solve the middle game, several years ago. The words I used may have been too long for you.
Now if only I could beat you in a middle game oh wait...
Are you saying we've played each other??
Nah I'm too good to get you in random pool unfortenently
Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls Almaz.
Also I did set out a strategy for creating algorithms to solve the middle game, several years ago. The words I used may have been too long for you.
Now if only I could beat you in a middle game oh wait...
Are you saying we've played each other??
Nah I'm too good to get you in random pool unfortenently
Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls.
I fool around in blitz and if I have a higher rating than you I blitz then you just have a skill issue if I'm worse than you
Actually in rapid I outplay ims half the time wanna bet who wins in classical ?
I could see you were fooling but even so it means that you pick up bad habits, Almaz. I like Turkey btw. A lot.
Also I did set out a strategy for creating algorithms to solve the middle game, several years ago. The words I used may have been too long for you.
Now if only I could beat you in a middle game oh wait...
Are you saying we've played each other??
Nah I'm too good to get you in random pool unfortenently
Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls.
I fool around in blitz and if I have a higher rating than you I blitz then you just have a skill issue if I'm worse than you
Actually in rapid I outplay ims half the time wanna bet who wins in classical ?
What;s your strength in FIDE rating points? My favourite speed is about 2 1/2 hours for all the moves but most games around here are 90 minutes each player or so.
I could see you were fooling but even so it means that you pick up bad habits, Almaz. I like Turkey btw. A lot.
I play around with pretty much every rating range except 3000 elo and can beat them in every time control lol so shall we see who's better ?
Also I did set out a strategy for creating algorithms to solve the middle game, several years ago. The words I used may have been too long for you.
Now if only I could beat you in a middle game oh wait...
Are you saying we've played each other??
Nah I'm too good to get you in random pool unfortenently
Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls.
I fool around in blitz and if I have a higher rating than you I blitz then you just have a skill issue if I'm worse than you
Actually in rapid I outplay ims half the time wanna bet who wins in classical ?
What;s your strength in FIDE rating points? My favourite speed is about 2 1/2 hours for all the moves but most games around here are 90 minutes each player or so.
I don't have a fide rating I assume I'm around 2000 not quite as good as an nm but super close
Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls Almaz.
That's quite a conclusion to draw against a much higher rated player after looking at only one game.
Also I did set out a strategy for creating algorithms to solve the middle game, several years ago. The words I used may have been too long for you.
Now if only I could beat you in a middle game oh wait...
Are you saying we've played each other??
Nah I'm too good to get you in random pool unfortenently
Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls.
I fool around in blitz and if I have a higher rating than you I blitz then you just have a skill issue if I'm worse than you
Actually in rapid I outplay ims half the time wanna bet who wins in classical ?
What;s your strength in FIDE rating points? My favourite speed is about 2 1/2 hours for all the moves but most games around here are 90 minutes each player or so.
I get tired in blitz. I need ten games to get going. In the old days I would then play 20 and win 15 or 16 but these days I get tired.
Just looked at one of your games. You aren't a good player. I would beat you at classical controls Almaz.
That's quite a conclusion to draw against a much higher rated player after looking at only one game.
Rating at 3 minute blitz isn't an indication. You played pretty badly. I'll look at some more if you wish?
I mean, you were playing like bullet chess. You were in a lost position 20 seconds into the game.
There was no point. You're effectively a child who cannot construct even a meaningful critisism. I can't answer a point where it doesn't exist.
Not only can I construct one...I can also spell the word.
You are completely bereft of any notion of how to solve chess, middlegame or otherwise. That's the point, and it's one you will not be able to refute.
You make quite a lot of typos and especially grammatical errors. I'm not childish enough to want to draw your attention to them. That was a typo. That's the sort of childishness you rely on. Or was it a joke?
You are bereft of any sense of reality, so that makes it even. Does it? Well, maybe not.
Now if I got a nickle for every typo I made ...
Completely agree. I make an average of about five per post. Sometimes I correct them.