@OctopusOnSteroids you just reiterated what the existing model said... I concluded you didn't understand the conversation, sorry.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
@OctopusOnSteroids you just reiterated what the existing model said... I concluded you didn't understand the conversation, sorry.
I reiterated what the existing model said, gave you a practical purpose for the existing model and asked you what the practical purpose for your proposed extension was, you didnt answer. Something vague like "it has to represent reality" doesnt suffice. It was you all along who did not understand the conversation.
If you want to extend the definition for chess it has to solve a real problem with the existing definition, you didnt provide the problem.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14684
So is the argument essentially that if a PHD thesis hasn't been written on the topic where terms have been rigorously mathematically defined, including this less-than-perfect player and everything else, there is no argument to be had?
That's not a refutation of the claim, it's just a generally skeptical statement. It doesn't even dispute the claim, actually.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14685
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
We all know that Optimissed IQ's claims are about as real as a unicorn with a day job. His actual IQ calls him out more often than his alarm clock. So, can we get back to the real topic?
Or did you finally run out of those wild fairy tales about how you're totally on the verge of solving chess?
During the short time I've followed this thread nobody has ever said we are totally on the verge of solving chess. Your lack of comprehension regarding the flow of discussion and the points being made leaves you too detached from the discussion to provide a meaninful contribution.
That isn't established.
Dub is slowly catching up.
He is learning about Opto for example.
And Opto just tried to pretend about something again.
I've disagreed with Elroch and Dio and MARattigan many times over the years.
Opto panics everytime anybody supports anybody in ways he doesn't like.
He is in constant pain.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14686
Agreed.
If you hold yourself to rigorous scientific standards in your own internal thought processes you will never be capable of advancing science in a significant way. Even hard science. You have to have some ability to navigate things like philosophy. It's part of the hypothesizing which must occur.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14687
crazedrat1000 wrote:
So is the argument essentially that if a PHD thesis hasn't been written on the topic where terms have been rigorously mathematically defined, including this less-than-perfect player and everything else, there is no argument to be had?
That's not a refutation of the claim, it's just a generally skeptical statement. It doesn't even dispute the claim, actually.
That's actually quite a good post.
And when a PhD thesis has been written its not the be-all and the end-all either.
Such papers have no halo no aura and no light coming out of them.
And its more and more predictable that even some of the better posters will stumble over the phrase 'perfect information'.
That phrase and the phrases 'game theoretic value' and 'weakly solved' are jargon phrases coined by pioneers of game theory but with an unfortunate choice of words however significant they may be to game theory.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14688
Yes, and not only that - in order to produce such a paper you have to think conceptually.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14689
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Yes, and not only that - in order to produce such a paper you have to think conceptually.
I added to my post. Most people don't edit their posts. I do.
Posts can be improved.
Plus I suggest you discount 'you have to' do something.
Octopus does that quite a bit. Not in the crippled way Opto does - but its there.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14690
I think you misinterpreted my statement. "You" is not referring to you, it's a general form of you where we're all imagining ourselves writing a PHD paper, and the process we'd have to go through. But I wasn't directing that at something in your post, so...
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14691
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
We all know that Optimissed IQ's claims are about as real as a unicorn with a day job. His actual IQ calls him out more often than his alarm clock. So, can we get back to the real topic?
Or did you finally run out of those wild fairy tales about how you're totally on the verge of solving chess?
Opto constantly makes false posts and when others expose him he makes a retort that he thinks undoes his false posting.
But his retorts never do. His false posts are there. He can't take them back.
Why does he make his retorts? Because he thinks its a chess game.
Probably he wished to be a titled player - but failed.
And his failed struggle to so become continues to spill out into the rest of his life - forever.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14692
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
We all know that Optimissed IQ's claims are about as real as a unicorn with a day job. His actual IQ calls him out more often than his alarm clock. So, can we get back to the real topic?
Or did you finally run out of those wild fairy tales about how you're totally on the verge of solving chess?
During the short time I've followed this thread nobody has ever said we are totally on the verge of solving chess. Your lack of comprehension regarding the flow of discussion and the points being made leaves you too detached from the discussion to provide a meaninful contribution.
That isn't established.
Dub is slowly catching up.
He is learning about Opto for example.
And Opto just tried to pretend about something again.
I've disagreed with Elroch and Dio and MARattigan many times over the years.
Opto panics everytime anybody supports anybody in ways he doesn't like.
He is in constant pain.
If you would just catch up you would know this to be true. tygxc made a living for years making such claims of solving chess in 5 years, and that was 3 years ago.
Now it has been established for YOU!
And there are thousands of such nonsense post on this thread. By TYGXC and others.
Dubrovnik - I know about tygxc's spamming and false claims.
I was there. I took over a year off this forum. I didn't want to see it.
But when I returned there were still good posters like Dio and Elroch and MARattigan - plus MEGA arrived.
And tygxc was further exposed and ended up withdrawing from the forum.
No amout of trolling by Opto could protect tygxc's spamming.
-----------------
But Dubrovnik - tygxc has nothing to do with your post about Opto's obsessions with IQ.
----------------------
Opto is known to constantly insult people including by direct namecalling - and then complains about the moderators and getting muted including for three months recently. Which is justice in reaction to his reporting people for disagreeing with him and his threatening members with reporting.
Just now he was in panic again. Why?
Because he knows the posts talking back to him - are accurate.
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14693
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Precision is a tool, not the goal - One can get lost in the details and not see the big picture. ...
On the other hand you may have the most divine ideas on how to interpret the Emperor Concerto, but if you can't play the notes it's likely to be a washout.
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
You can't "read" stress, you can only assume it, and your assumption here is incorrect.
It's correct.
So sayeth the poster who judges himself to be the world's smartest man.
MARattigan wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Precision is a tool, not the goal - One can get lost in the details and not see the big picture. ...
On the other hand you may have the most divine ideas on how to interpret the Emperor Concerto, but if you can't play the notes it's likely to be a washout.
Just write it down on a piece of paper and find someone who can play it
Feb 23, 2025
0
#14696
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
Just get back to the thread topic. No one really cares about Optimissed's IQ fantasies.
Correct. Nobody cares. But he does. Opto does.
He doesn't realize his talking about IQ and his narcissism can't fix his intense frustrations.
And you made a post about it.
Plus you made it clear you have no fear of Opto. For now. Good for you.
Idea: don't make a post about something and then tell people to not talk about your post.
----------------------------------
Days ago there was discussion about AI and its role in writing programs.
Stockfish came up but doesn't seem relevant enough to tablebase projects 'solving' chess. Stockfish demonstrates that top of the line chess software is fallible though.
And forward 'wide game tree search' can't do it - that collides with the Shannon number of 10^120.
Its called progress.
Progress in discussion.
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
I propose that @Optimissed be recognised as the world leader in giving inflated estimates of his IQ at a very senior age.
Do you consider yourself bright average, bright or very bright? You often seem to fail to understand ideas. Are you really in any position to judge? Also 73 isn't "very senior". These days people start to get old at 80.
Actually there are number of changes that occur at 60, and this is a well established line of demarcation of the start of real decline. By the 70s and 80s it's pretty pronounced. In your case, I would say that the decline is not as visible because your pre-existing delusionary worldview would tend to hide your cognitive decline since it looks like business as usual for you.
Optimissed wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Alot of the decline in IQ with age has been explained via the Flynn Effect. There's a minor decline but in the past it was overstated... crystalized intelligence increases, which probably functionally offsets the decline. Anyway, I don't think it's right to attack a persons age anymore than if it were their sex or race.
I wouldn't even want to try one of those IQ tests again. Haven't done one since 1977 and there were some in the book I didn't do. Actually, changed my mind .... I wouldn't mind trying again sometime. I don't enjoy calculating in chess like I used to but when I'm playing, I find I don't need to calculate so much, which may be what you mean by crystallised intelligence. They tend to use any weapon to hand, regarding the ageist commentary. I've noticed it quite a bit, lately.
My lifestyle changed a lot recently and I'm really enjoying working again. I'm being asked to negotiate on the behalf of a very rapidly expanding company in the uk so clearly people who actually matter have faith in my abilities.
"and there were some in the book I didn't do."
Always a new revelation slipping out...so, similar to your "wife" turning out a decade later not being your actual wife, perhaps your "tests" were self-administered out of a book all along...?
There's no way that any legitimate testing center proctor would give you all their tests in a single "book" and then tell you to refrain from looking at the other tests.
P.S. Sorry to anyone else reading for prolonging the agony. I will stop commenting on the IQ garbage when I have caught up.
crazedrat1000 wrote:
But you're just insisting the model is what it is, you're not addressing the argument it ought to be extended, which is... the entire argument. You're ignoring that fields and models evolve all the time.
Within the next year there will be people doing PHDs on game theory, adding to the body of literature which makes up game theory, extending its models... and slowly, gradually evolving the field. They'll be redefining existing terms, giving them new context inwhich they may or may not apply, or where their meanings may be modified.... that's how all fields work. Even something purely rational like math is still evolving.
The relevant question is whether the model is accurately modeling reality. And if not, in what way does it fall short and how can it be extended.
If anyone is going to "extend the model" it certainly will not be anyone here claiming the model is not up to snuff. While I could draw parallels between Nash and some posters here, it would not be in the realm of competent, logical arguments.
By "hard" subject, I meant maths, physical sciences and that sort of thing.
As I have explained, chess (defined in a suitable way for game theory) IS a game of perfect information (using the usual definition, but also any of the broader ones).
You seem not precise enough to understand that. It's the wrong hill to die on.