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.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
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
#12567
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
#12572
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.
DiogenesDue wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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?
And I don't just roll over and agree with you because you're a maniac? 
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.
DiogenesDue wrote:
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.
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!!
chess has been solved by my toaster bro yall don't understand
u needta ease up on the pop tarts there