We are in fact disagreeing about definitions. I am only claiming the naked eye cannot perceive the difference between a straight line and one that is curved at ~0.0003 degrees (@ sea level). Other visual clues that can be used to deduce curvature must be present are not relevant to my argument.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14883
Elroch wrote:
Well the horizon is always a circle - only the elevation varies depending on your altitude. Unless you are at a very high altitude, you need a large part of it to reveal curvature. It's kind of an odd way to look for the curvature of the Earth (eg if you look at a large circle on a flat plane, from an altitude, you get the same effect - it's nothing to do with the curvature of the surface).
Or motion. You need motion to perceive the curvature at right angles to the horizon. Whether upward or horizontal motion or both.
Unless there's a way to measure the distance from wherever you are.
Like by triangulation. Downwards.
The distance results are going to vary more (in two ways) the further the object is away from directly underneath - the more curved the surface.
----------------
But a satellite or aircraft is necessary?
A building near the sea. You know the height at the top.
Then from faraway locations at sea level you know the distance to the building.
You measure the angle to the top.
Results are going to vary depending on how curved the surface is.
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14884
Elroch wrote:
The obstruction of objects (or parts of object) beyond the horizon of the sea is a clear observation of curvature.
The line on the surface from you to the object HAS to bend in order for the object to be obstructed. If it was straight, there would be no obstruction. It is the very fact that it is out of sight that proves it is not straight (and bends down).
Exactly. But that line is perpendicular to the 'circle' formed by the horizon.
Which is also a consequence of 'curved'.
If the earth was cube shaped then you wouldn't see a circular horizon.
There'd be corners.
If it was an ellipsoid (is that the right word? maybe 'pronounced spheroid' is better) much longer than wide - then the horizon would look different at two points - and it wouldn't look as circular for most of its length.
We do perceive aspects of the sphere immediately.
At sea the ocean horizon is almost exactly equidistant whichever way you look.
(its just very slightly spheroid so its not exact - but the unassisted eye is not going to detect that)
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14885
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
I'm not challenging the data, I'm challenging your ability to read and interpret things, which seems pretty lackluster.
My chess.com elo is 1955 today. If you're claiming that FIDE is 150 below that - well then it's 150 below that. That's about the end of the analysis. I don't exactly know what it is since I shifted to blitz, then bullet, and now I'm into daily. I'll go back to rapid at some point and then we'll really know. But looking at my last 500 games is not somehow more insightful than just looking at my current rating.
On the other hand, in daily I'm probably actually higher rated than rapid, but I haven't played much daily hence I'm only at 1500 there currently.
"So no, that evidence doesn't support your conclusion, of course you'd like to construe it as such but no"
There is not much to interpret. Since the AI draws the conclusions. And the computer AI saw the rise in your Elo over the 586 games.
Then gave the correct Elo for your last game date in the data set.
And the computer nailed your Elo for your game play like OP.... And it matches the expected difference between Chess.com Elo, and Fide ELO.
And yes I know you also cheat with a opening book in your online games.
I might be the most active commentator in the opening section of this forum and have studied it almost exclusively since I started, I have not even started on studying the endgame or midgame yet, hence the skew that you see there. This is something I have spoken about many times before. It's why I can confidently out-debate 2300s on the opening, but still I'm only rated 1950. So yes, my knowledge of the opening far outstrips the other aspects of my play - for now.
I simply am taking a progressive systematic approach to learning the game. That is my style. You would know nothing about it...
What you are is a good example of what happens when a feeble minded person is given an AI tool and presented with lots of statistics which they're incapable of interpreting in an intelligent way.
Now, I think cheating accusations are against the rules - so keep it up and you might find yourself moderated.
Well then sincere congratulation are in order for your outstanding opening chess theory, and knowledge.
The AI saw and recognized you played at a 250% opening chess theory level. That is better then the best Grandmaster on the planet.
And you destroyed O's opening chess theory performance of 226%.
This makes you the best chess opening theorist on planet Earth. And better then the best Grandmaster on planet Earth.
Again congratulation on this outstanding performance in chess opening theory....
This is a daily game we're analyzing, so I don't know what the baseline is. If my 250% is inhuman shouldn't you claim Optimissed 226% is practically inhuman as well...? So aren't you really claiming we both cheated? You're only talking about a 24% difference there.
But no one here, including you, seems to have any idea what "24%" even means, it's just nonsense.
The first 10 moves of that game are typical slav moves in the most theoretical slav position I play, the alapin slav. There's nothing inhuman about the moves in that game. Point to the inhuman move. It's literally just develop along normal lines, Nd7 and castles, Be7 to trade bishops at one point, and then Nd6 > f6 is the critical move. Are you saying no one could possibly find f6? In a daily game? Point to the actual moves you think are suspect.
There was no cheating in that game.
Now, I've reported you repeatedly because cheating accusations are not allowed on this forum. But since this place is very poorly moderated, probably nothing will happen but who knows. In this case I don't even know what the basis for accusation is, I don't know what "250%" even means and I don't think anyone else here does. As I said, you are what happens when a feeble mind gets ahold of AI tools.
Again as you well know. I used zero daily time controls games. When looking at your games. I used only your rapid time control game.
And again what a out standing result. Scoring 250% in chess theory. GM So could only manage a brain numbing score of only 89%.
What it most likely shows is that your metric requires some intelligence to use / interpret which you simply do not have. You're claiming that Optimissed played at 226% and Optimissed lost the game due to an opening mistake somewhere around move 11, when he blundered Nd6. He also made an inaccuracy around move 8 via e5. Likewise I castled on move 11 or so and there was a better move pinning the queen. And yet Optimissed, according to this claim, also played at "226% of what the best GM on the planet plays at". He literally blundered and lost the game in the opening.
That's not taking away anything from him since I didn't even see the continuation until he played the move, but it does completely discredit your argument.
I don't even know what "the opening" refers to since that's a theoretical position where we played 7 moves of theory, 3-4 common slav moves like Nd7 and castles, and then the game started. So if your "analysis" considers the opening done with by move 11... well, you simply have no point. There are people who know the opening out to move 17 in certain lines, i.e. the QGD Lasker defense. When does the opening end? By move 20?
And how does your tool interpret GMs who play suboptimal moves intentionally in order to get their opponents out of book, rather than the most common book lines...?
You don't have answers to these questions, you're essentially a moron who's been given an AI tool and doesn't have the faintest idea how to interpret what it's saying.
C.C's analysis tool is very similar and C.C has put out prolonged explanations on how their tool is not suitable for detecting cheating. Do the same principles apply to your tool? Again you have no idea, you are just a little moron, not even aware that you need to ask these questions.
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14886
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
I'm not challenging the data, I'm challenging your ability to read and interpret things, which seems pretty lackluster.
My chess.com elo is 1955 today. If you're claiming that FIDE is 150 below that - well then it's 150 below that. That's about the end of the analysis. I don't exactly know what it is since I shifted to blitz, then bullet, and now I'm into daily. I'll go back to rapid at some point and then we'll really know. But looking at my last 500 games is not somehow more insightful than just looking at my current rating.
On the other hand, in daily I'm probably actually higher rated than rapid, but I haven't played much daily hence I'm only at 1500 there currently.
"So no, that evidence doesn't support your conclusion, of course you'd like to construe it as such but no"
There is not much to interpret. Since the AI draws the conclusions. And the computer AI saw the rise in your Elo over the 586 games.
Then gave the correct Elo for your last game date in the data set.
And the computer nailed your Elo for your game play like OP.... And it matches the expected difference between Chess.com Elo, and Fide ELO.
And yes I know you also cheat with a opening book in your online games.
I might be the most active commentator in the opening section of this forum and have studied it almost exclusively since I started, I have not even started on studying the endgame or midgame yet, hence the skew that you see there. This is something I have spoken about many times before. It's why I can confidently out-debate 2300s on the opening, but still I'm only rated 1950. So yes, my knowledge of the opening far outstrips the other aspects of my play - for now.
I simply am taking a progressive systematic approach to learning the game. That is my style. You would know nothing about it...
What you are is a good example of what happens when a feeble minded person is given an AI tool and presented with lots of statistics which they're incapable of interpreting in an intelligent way.
Now, I think cheating accusations are against the rules - so keep it up and you might find yourself moderated.
Well then sincere congratulation are in order for your outstanding opening chess theory, and knowledge.
The AI saw and recognized you played at a 250% opening chess theory level. That is better then the best Grandmaster on the planet.
And you destroyed O's opening chess theory performance of 226%.
This makes you the best chess opening theorist on planet Earth. And better then the best Grandmaster on planet Earth.
Again congratulation on this outstanding performance in chess opening theory....
This is a daily game we're analyzing, so I don't know what the baseline is. If my 250% is inhuman shouldn't you claim Optimissed 226% is practically inhuman as well...? So aren't you really claiming we both cheated? You're only talking about a 24% difference there.
But no one here, including you, seems to have any idea what "24%" even means, it's just nonsense.
The first 10 moves of that game are typical slav moves in the most theoretical slav position I play, the alapin slav. There's nothing inhuman about the moves in that game. Point to the inhuman move. It's literally just develop along normal lines, Nd7 and castles, Be7 to trade bishops at one point, and then Nd6 > f6 is the critical move. Are you saying no one could possibly find f6? In a daily game? Point to the actual moves you think are suspect.
There was no cheating in that game.
Now, I've reported you repeatedly because cheating accusations are not allowed on this forum. But since this place is very poorly moderated, probably nothing will happen but who knows. In this case I don't even know what the basis for accusation is, I don't know what "250%" even means and I don't think anyone else here does. As I said, you are what happens when a feeble mind gets ahold of AI tools.
Again as you well know. I used zero daily time controls games. When looking at your games. I used only your rapid time control game.
And again what a out standing result. Scoring 250% in chess theory. GM So could only manage a brain numbing score of only 89%.
Unless further details are provided on the formula, I'll maintain this is likely a poor way to detect cheating... A GM might choose a non theoretical line on purpose and score a lower % than some 1500 who always plays the same theoretical London moves..
I agree let us get some more data points.
Theory: Factors include the average evaluation after the opening (., the advantage White gains from the opening), the average length of theoretical lines, and the breadth of the repertoire. Main lines are preferred; however, the "modernity" of the repertoire is not considered.
Here is the results for the best chess player of all time on Chess.com. This is all his Rapid games for the last 4 years, and your results. Poor Magnus could only get 67% in chess theory.
But you are a Octopus On Steroids. Wow! You know these opening lines no matter what lines are played. It is almost like you have a computer chip implanted in your brain with nothing but opening chess theory. If you could only improve the rest of your game using that photographic memory. You could become the world chess champion. With a theory score of 540%, you make those other two look like low grade morons.
Lol, you idiot... if the advantage white gets from the opening is factored into this score then its value will vary based on the strength of the opponents and how well they respond to the opening. i.e. you can't compare a GM to an average player since GMs are facing other GMs, and we expect less mistakes in the opening from GMs, hence throughout this entire conversation you've been comparing apples and oranges.
FFS, what a moron...
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14887
translation of C-Rat's post just now -
he has probably missed the point completely regarding what Dubrovnik is doing.
Plus C-Rat following the O-person's lead in very directly breaking the rules of chess.com forums.
C-Rat and Opto would both like to turn the forum into a trollfest.
Their plan seems to be for C-Rat to take the fall and then return with a new account name.
----------------------
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14888
Dear [removed -- MS]-
If the advantage white has out of the opening factors into the score then necessarily the strength of the opponent is factored into the score - because the advantage you get against a weak opponent out of the opening will be greater than what you get vs. a strong opponent. There is no doubt about this.
Theory: Factors include the average evaluation after the opening (., the advantage White gains from the opening)
And this explains why every chess player in this thread you've analyzed thus far, according to your moronic analysis, must be using an opening book. (A book which GMs already play perfectly out to move 15, btw)
I know it's difficult following logic, but I'm not really asking you to - this is more for the benefit of the people capable of reading. I actually don't expect you to understand.
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14889
Diverging from theory due to your opponent making a mistake is how your score goes up.
"Theory: Factors include the average evaluation after the opening (., the advantage White gains from the opening)"
If they were only ever looking at what occurred prior to diverging from theory there'd be no advantage to assess, as there'd be no difference in evaluation, would there be...?
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14890
Lol "drive the point home". Just to drive your head into a wall repeatedly, you mean?
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14891
Optimissed wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Dear [removed -- MS]-
If the advantage white has out of the opening factors into the score then necessarily the strength of the opponent is factored into the score - because the advantage you get against a weak opponent out of the opening will be greater than what you get vs. a strong opponent. There is no doubt about this.
Theory: Factors include the average evaluation after the opening (., the advantage White gains from the opening)
And this explains why every chess player in this thread you've analyzed thus far, according to your moronic analysis, must be using an opening book.
I know it's difficult following logic, but I'm not really asking you to - this is more for the benefit of the people following who are capable of reading.
Again you have the IQ of O.
If you are still in theory, so is the other chess player. Regardless of the other players rating, or if the other player is also cheating with a opening book,
"And this explains why every chess player in this thread you've analyzed thus far, according to your moronic analysis, must be using an opening book."
Except for the strongest chess players on the planet, that score below 100% in chess theory.
GM Carlsen 67%
GM SO 89%
Crat book cheater 250%
O book cheater 226%
Octo boy book cheater. 540%
I can tell he's quite clever. I can tell you aren't.
Translation of Opto's post - it means he thinks C-Rat is not clever.
Opto is concerned with who he likes or doesn't like.
Which derives from whether whoever supports him.
C-Rat. The tarot card 'psi-power' guy. Clever?
Hahahaahh.
Opto probably pretended Noodles is clever too.
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14892
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Dear [removed - MS]-
If the advantage white has out of the opening factors into the score then necessarily the strength of the opponent is factored into the score - because the advantage you get against a weak opponent out of the opening will be greater than what you get vs. a strong opponent. There is no doubt about this.
Theory: Factors include the average evaluation after the opening (., the advantage White gains from the opening)
And this explains why every chess player in this thread you've analyzed thus far, according to your moronic analysis, must be using an opening book.
I know it's difficult following logic, but I'm not really asking you to - this is more for the benefit of the people following who are capable of reading.
Again you have the IQ of O.
If you are still in theory, so is the other chess player. Regardless of the other players rating, or if the other player is also cheating with a opening book,
"And this explains why every chess player in this thread you've analyzed thus far, according to your moronic analysis, must be using an opening book."
Except for the strongest chess players on the planet, that score below 100% in chess theory.
GM Carlsen 67%
GM SO 89%
Crat book cheater 250%
O book cheater 226%
Octo boy book cheater. 540%
Dubrovnik it seems they just don't know what you're doing.
But you've got them very excited!
'Octo boy' ...
Hahahahahahah. 
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14893
mpaetz wrote:
The point is that the fact that 88% of the population might have some belief that unverified speculations are true is no strong proof that they actually are. You used that statistic to buttress Opti's statements that he does have psychic abilities (that he never bothered to develop), and accuse others of unfairly challenging his assertion.
No, that isn't the argument - I cited that statistic to dispense with the general attitude of mockery, which... makes sense because mockery and shame are implicitly appeals to the majority. But I am under no illusion that the mere fact the masses believe something makes it true. Again, the case for divination is not primarily philosophical, it is very much based on experience. A good experiment could prove the effect, but it'd rely on the experimenter knowing what they're doing, so wouldn't be reproducible.
Hence I really would not expect you to believe the claims without witnessing the effects yourself, what I'd actually expect is uncertainty regarding the matter. A healthy uncertainty which is a sign of genuine intelligence and emotional maturity. That's a case which can be argued successfully. Arguing a positive case is pretty futile. Infact, it's dubious to even mention the topic in public. We don't even know quite how it works, so how could I possibly make a strong philosophical case for it - you can get into quantum physics to try to explain it, but it's still quite reaching and difficult. Personally I don't think you can explain it without some reference to God... though Optimissed has a different opinion.
The problem is actually even more intractable than I describe, since it gets into the transcendent aspect of consciousness binding some potential event, it relies in large part on your own subjective context to interpret the results. Which makes it hard to operationalize, much less convey to someone, especially to a skeptic or to the public.
Anyway, no - you misinterpreted that.
I already thoroughly debunked your lighthouse story the last time you posted it. The distance is almost 700 miles, 300+ miles beyond the longest straight line between high elevations it is possible to see.
do u have ticks ?...its less than 300 miles from mt olypmus cyprus to alexandria AND its 6400 ft up in the air. ykw ?...i strongly suggest u buy a 10-key (with a operators manual !)
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14895
Personally I believe that human consciousness and perception is hardly all-encompassing, and we are likely capable of perceptions outside the realm of the five senses. I also believe that NO human religion comes close to describing the actual nature of the phenomenon. Fantasizing an omnipotent intelligence to explain everything may be a psychologically comforting explanation but not something to which I subscribe.
However, using an example of a belief with no substantial evidence supporting it to buttress another such belief is unconvincing. Ancient Hellenes' subjective interpretation of the sun travelling across the sky every day--Apollo driving it in his chariot--was likely incorrect.
Opti has stated that he has psychic powers; a woman long ago told him so. Examples of his capabilities in action have not materialized. He has also told us that he could have scored 170 on IQ tests if he so desired. Recently elevated his "real" IQ to 190 (at least). He told us he is one of the 5 or 10 most brilliant people on the planet. You may have noted how often he resorts to the "as you don't understand (whatever the subject under discussion) as well as I do and you are far less intelligent than me" reasoning to declare himself the "winner" of an argument,
Some here take exception to what they perceive as overbearing pomposity and arrogance spanning years and many forums and will not suffer it silently. Personally, I rather like him except for the descents into insults and petty name-calling.
Philosophy is such a pointless and unhealthy topic for the mind. The human brain is designed to experience stuff in the real world, not aimlessly wonder and agonize over it's own meaning and existence and other reduction ad surdem/self-referential paradoxes. To protect youth mental health it shouldn't be offered as a course or major in college, and all books on the subject should be deprioritized in publishing/selling. Obsessing over things like that can lead to serious depression/existential dread/mental dilemmas. Who cares whether life has meaning or not? The freedom, ironically, is realizing none of these questions are important and are a laughable waste of time that people who had nothing better to do back then concocted. Go ziplining/take pilot lessons/go on random road trips if you're bored. You couldn't pay me to sit through a philosophy class lol
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
I already thoroughly debunked your lighthouse story the last time you posted it. The distance is almost 700 miles, 300+ miles beyond the longest straight line between high elevations it is possible to see.
do u have ticks ?...its less than 300 miles from mt olypmus cyprus to alexandria AND its 6400 ft up in the air. ykw ?...i strongly suggest u buy a 10-key (with a operators manual !)
Ahh, I see, you just tried to modify your previous mythical delusion which used the top of the great pyramids to Mount Olympus. Then you used another Mount Olympus that is historically insignificant and has nothing to do with the original myth you believed in.
I mean, that's about as slimy and disingenuous as it gets. Low, even for you.
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
to argue why the earth must be flat
it didnt help help that they could see the litehouse of alexandria from mount olympus. AND even the firelight atop the king pyramid (tho barely)...they say. making those viewing ?...thinking that the earth may a been as flat as doo's personality. i read where they employed (iknow iknow itsa dorky word) water-optical prisms to yackup the multiple for their very own viewing pleasure lol !
Quoting to preserve the attempted subterfuge.
Feb 25, 2025
0
#14899
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Philosophy is such a pointless and unhealthy topic for the mind. The human brain is designed to experience stuff in the real world, not aimlessly wonder and agonize over it's own meaning and existence and other reduction ad surdem/self-referential paradoxes. To protect youth mental health it shouldn't be offered as a course or major in college, and all books on the subject should be deprioritized in publishing/selling. Obsessing over things like that can lead to serious depression/existential dread/mental dilemmas. Who cares whether life has meaning or not? The freedom, ironically, is realizing none of these questions are important and are a laughable waste of time that people who had nothing better to do back then concocted. Go ziplining/take pilot lessons/go on random road trips if you're bored. You couldn't pay me to sit through a philosophy class lol
EE is wrong again as usual. And he has not protected his mental health.
Philosophy is neither pointless nor unhealthy.
But the way Opto goes at it is.
Opto intentionally disagrees with people he knows have said something correct.
By doing so he gets more opportunities to say 'better than you' and 'higher IQ' and his other trolling.
He also initiates. With things he knows are false - so he'll get disagreement which leads into his narcissisms. Then he can bait - rulebreak and draw a rulebreaking reply and then report that person while he is unreported.
He's being doing these things for ten years.
----------------------
But most other people make much better postings than him. Most.
The obstruction of objects (or parts of object) beyond the horizon of the sea is a clear observation of curvature.
The line on the surface from you to the object HAS to bend in order for the object to be obstructed. If it was straight, there would be no obstruction. It is the very fact that it is out of sight that proves it is not straight (and bends down).