dang.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14723
MARattigan wrote:
You forgot to tell us what your mother in law had for breakfast this morning. If we're going to arrive at any sensible judgement of whether chess will ever be solved, that information will be essential.
That post from Martin regarding 'Opto' probably the best post of the last few days.
So good that I quoted it Twice!
Lol!
not even round-the-world chess is infinite. thats the one where a horse can go from Nb1 to say Nh2 (so long as the squares open or occupied by your opp piece/pawn). or say Nb1 to Nc7. gettit ? i just made it up lol !
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14725
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
not even round-the-world chess is infinite. thats the one where a horse can go from Nb1 to say Nh2 (so long as the squares open or occupied by your opp piece/pawn). or say Nb1 to Nc7. gettit ? i just made it up lol !
Hi Lola! I Reddit too.
Reminds me of something I worked out decades ago.
(probably worked out many times before that by many persons maybe with some publishing too but I'm not aware of it)
-----------------------
That there's 21 types of knight moves.
But only one type of those 21 is edge to edge. Moves like Nb1 to Na3.
Also found that of the other 20 types there was an exact even split ...
with 10 types being 'interior to interior' and the other ten involving an edge (includes moves to and from the corner squares)
This accounted for all 336 knight motions. Which are in 21 types of 16 each.
(If you want total knight moves then multiply by 2 to account for both directions and multiply by 2 again to include both colours of knights)
That and some other insights into knight moves gave me an improved perception of knight moves.
Including at Night.
playerafar wrote:
Elroch is correct of course. As usual.
EE is motivated in a different way from IPG.
In EE's denials of manmade climate change.
He trashes the science as a means of venting his personal frustrations.
Whereas with IPG it appears to be ideological although she chirps robotically.
One of her initial assertions was like this: 'is global warming good? Its certainly not bad!'
Essentially all her posts since then have been reiterations of that same disinformation.
What is it with you and bringing other random people into the discussion at random times?
Elroch wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
"my nonsense" lol I didn't produce the movie.
EE now admits it was nonsense he was attacking.
Him talking about a phony movie isn't going to change the facts regarding EE
including his admissions about him being on medication and his nonsense claims of the oceans being too big to rise and of ice being unable to melt in polar regions. People making such claims would likely need medication.
Its not something for EE to be ashamed of though.
But obviously - like Opto - he has compelling needs to talk about his personal situation - on the internet.
The purpose of the movie was to fear monger about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions,
You seem to have a very poor grip on the distinction between fact and fiction. Movies are made to entertain people and thereby make money.
Jaws was NOT made to make people scared of sharks.
Psycho was NOT made to make people scared of showers.
And The Day After Tomorrow was NOT made to make people scared of climate change.
Rather the $125 million it cost to make came from hard-nosed investors who wanted to make a profit - not people donating to charity - and were 100% for making the SCIENCE FICTION DISASTER MOVIE (capitals because you seem to think it was a documentary) achieve this aim.
They succeeded. Although it is generally regarded as a mediocre movie, it grossed well over half a billion dollars.
People object that the movie is unrealistic - it is - but this is actually a strength. No-one mistakes it for being realistic. Rather it is a fast-moving action drama that suits a couple of hours in a movie theatre.
Absurd unrealism has the opposite effect. "Into The Storm" did a much better job.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14728
Optimissed wrote:
playerafar wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Elroch is correct of course. As usual.
EE is motivated in a different way from IPG.
In EE's denials of manmade climate change.
He trashes the science as a means of venting his personal frustrations.
Whereas with IPG it appears to be ideological although she chirps robotically.
One of her initial assertions was like this: 'is global warming good? Its certainly not bad!'
Essentially all her posts since then have been reiterations of that same disinformation.
What is it with you and bringing other random people into the discussion at random times?
What is it with you and your venting?
People in the forum aren't 'random people'.
Can't you get anything right at all EE?
Out of interest, WHY are you so angry and generally unpleasant?
Opto you should ask yourself that question more often.
But - good that you asked yourself there.
You can ask EE too.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14729
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Elroch is correct of course. As usual.
EE is motivated in a different way from IPG.
In EE's denials of manmade climate change.
He trashes the science as a means of venting his personal frustrations.
Whereas with IPG it appears to be ideological although she chirps robotically.
One of her initial assertions was like this: 'is global warming good? Its certainly not bad!'
Essentially all her posts since then have been reiterations of that same disinformation.
What is it with you and bringing other random people into the discussion at random times?
What is it with you and your venting?
People in the forum aren't 'random people'.
Can't you get anything right at all EE?
Your trying to use a phony movie as an argument hasn't deceived anybody except yourself. Its not about Elroch.
But now there's the 'bromance'.
Elroch refuting EE's pathetic movie post and Opto getting excited about his 'enemy of his enemy' obsession and sucking up to EE.
Opto always wants to talk about intelligence levels but his posts tend to be well below average intelligence levels. People of average intelligence know much better than Opto and EE.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14730
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
They call this bot (Li-bot) 2000 rated. I know it doesn't mean 2000 FIDE, which is about what my rating is. It means 2000 rated here, where ratings are much higher than they should be. Even so, shouldn't they even TRY to get it right? Just played. I actually had some clever wins against it and it goes and publishes this one.
I just treated myself to over 10,000 of your rapid games on chess.com. Since I have very easy access to download them. And to break out the 64 core Threadripper and do some analysis of your games.
The results are quite fascinating.
6% endgame affinity for Opto. Uh oh.
Optimissed wrote:
Nutcasetime.
Congrats on finally admitting it to yourself.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14732
I just looked at crazedrat's (1500 rated) win over Opto.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/774285081?tab=review&move=51----------------------------------
Used the Game Review feature.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14734
Right - 10 min used to be classified as blitz for quite a lot of that time, I think?
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14735
playerafar wrote:
I just looked at crazedrat's (1500 rated) win over Opto.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/774285081?tab=review&move=51----------------------------------
Used the Game Review feature.
Hey its the same 'rat' that's been posting here.
He's rated 500 points under Opto and beat him.
Which fits with Dubrovnik's postings about 'O'.
but rat doesn't seem to get it that Opto's usually wrong.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14736
I performed at a 2300 level, and am 19-1 in daily with 1 accidental abandonment on move 1, i.e. have not really lost yet... It's not accurate to describe my daily rating as 1500 level. I'm 1955 in rapid, but probably at least 100 points higher in daily, if not more. Since I excel when I have time to think deeply.
And both of us were actually quite surprised during the game by how brutally quickly that opening turned in favor of black. It was more of a friendly experimental game than anything else.
So no, that evidence doesn't support your conclusion, of course you'd like to construe it as such but no
Optimissed wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Certain people here adopt a false pretense of a rational / empirical mindset when it serves their interests, but drop it the moment it does not.
Considering no one here has a record of these IQ tests Optimissed took I don't see what basis any of you have for arguing this matter. All you're doing is insisting on your beliefs as a group, essentially.
There are a few ways it's possible to assess a persons IQ online.
a) they can give you evidence of a score. You don't have that in this case. And as far as I'm aware there is no such official record of these tests Optimissed took.
b) you could judge their character and take their word for it, or refuse to believe them. This is what most of you are doing, at best. This conclusion isn't knowledge, it's just a belief.
c) You could inspect the persons thought process and compare it with yours - it can be a reliable method, however it does assume you're capable of following said persons thought process, which... based on the arguments I've seen in this thread regarding its topic, none of you are capable of that.
I've seen pretty much every one of you (except for Optimissed) miss the point, and then veer off toward the bleachers, multiple times. That is not flattery or personal bias on my part, it is the reality. Even our self-proclaimed resident "genius" Elroch can't tell the difference between philosophy and math, or reality and a PHD thesis.
Hence I can just say, based on my observations of all of you, none of you are actually qualified to use method C in this scenario.
And so what we have are just a large group of dunces taking shelter in numbers, self-motivated to believe a certain way, repeating their beliefs to one another in the hopes if they do so enough their beliefs will become fact... but it doesn't work that way.
It isn't very important .... they're making themselves look exactly what they are.
Completely full of it, disrespectful, self-opinionated and ignorant.
But thanks. Yes, they're dunces. They worship Elroch and I think he's thick.
Keep calling other posters dunces. It speeds up your next inevitable mutes.
This behavior prompts the question "what kind of person keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over and never learns their lesson?". I think we all the answer to that one.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14738
@DiogenesDue when you deny Optomissed claim about his intelligence you are insulting his intelligence. You do this quite frequently. You also join in on the group pile-on where many people are insulting his intelligence in many ways, directly and indirectly.
When you try to turn around and grab the moral highground of being somehow above such things... it just doesn't work. I've always said about you that "morality" is something you use as a social strategy, it actually means nothing to you.
Feb 24, 2025
0
#14739
crazedrat1000 wrote:
I performed at a 2300 level, and am 19-1 in daily with 1 accidental abandonment on move 1, i.e. have not really lost yet... It's not accurate to describe my daily rating as 1500 level. I'm 1955 in rapid, but probably at least 100 points higher in daily, if not more. Since I excel when I have time to think deeply.
And both of us were actually quite surprised during the game by how brutally quickly that opening turned in favor of black. It was more of a friendly experimental game than anything else.
So no, that evidence doesn't support your conclusion, of course you'd like to construe it as such but no
I didn't make a conclusion.
So its now you making a false post.
No apology from me. But you can be 'sorry'.
@Optimissed may have had a super-high IQ as the result of a high fever from an infectious disease, but I acquired the ability to fly the same way.
[This is not a true story].
Hahahahahaah!!
