ChessAGC_YT wrote:
guys?
Did you lose mommy?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jan 13, 2025
0
#16683
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
jereminatan wrote:
You can never predict what kind of move will tick, inspire, amuse, or bore your opponent. Since you don't know how your opponents deep game psychology might work. You don't know what his game strategies are, what kind of blundering tactics he might fall pray to. The "best move" to them is not the same "best move" to the next opponent.
Solving chess has nothing to do with the types of positions some players might prefer, whether individual players or computers consider some moves to be "best" while different players/computers have a different opinion, or anything with any subjective matters. The question is: is there or is there not any series of moves that will result in a won position no matter what moves the opponent may play?
But that isn't related to the point he was making.
My point is that all of his (and others) talk of game styles, positional preferences, game strategies, opinions on what is a "best" move and the like don't really bear on the original question.
Jan 13, 2025
0
#16684
The subjective.
Not subjective perception.
As for 'agreeing to disagree' was there ever a 'disagreement to disagree'?
Things get discussed.
'agreement to disagree' is artificial.
Since when would anybody have authority over somebody disagreeing or agreeing anyway?
Some 'think' its been solved?
Well some think the world is flat too.
We had somebody here spamming for years about chess being 'solved in five years with enough money'.
He wasn't trolled. His disinformation was rightly talked back to - and as it eventually turned out -
he had issues. They began to show.
And his principal supporter was muted heavily for constantly trolling.
Jan 13, 2025
0
#16685
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
guys?
Did you lose mommy?
shut up, bro even made a typo, who's the real kid?
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
playerafar wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
jereminatan wrote:
You can never predict what kind of move will tick, inspire, amuse, or bore your opponent. Since you don't know how your opponents deep game psychology might work. You don't know what his game strategies are, what kind of blundering tactics he might fall pray to. The "best move" to them is not the same "best move" to the next opponent.
Except that there are a single or small set of moves that are objectively "best" in each position, so the subjective is not really meaningful.
Except that the subjective is nearly always meaningful.
Context.
Agreed.
In some contexts, acknowledgement of the subjective perception of objectivity is little more than a formality.
By chance, do you believe that when you put your hands over your face, you are invisible to others? That is a good example of what happens when you have not learned to understand objective reality. You could add it to your paranormal panoply of powers, I guess.
Perhaps they wouldn't recognise me.
I prefer the idea of paranormal ability. Fundamentally, I think it's nothing more than knowing which hunches to back, because the hunches themselves have a recogniseable effect on state of mind. I would say that the differences in mental reactions to one's own thoughts are subtle and fast moving. It's easy to get them confused, which is one reason for incredible runs of bad luck in gambling and so forth.
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
guys?
Is this where you jump in to say "stop it now!!!"?
You need to be careful about that...you're going to become a meme like "Leave Brittany alone!!!".
Jan 13, 2025
0
#16689
DiogenesDue wrote:
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
guys?
Is this where where jump in to say "stop it now!!!"?
You need to be careful about that...you're going to become a meme like "Leave Brittany alone!!!".
"where where" What is it with you guys and typos?
That's one aspect ... others depend on the ability to be completely in the moment. Well, backing hunches does too. The mind of the gambler must be an interesting thing to study. I don't gamble though. Or I try not to ..... predictive ability is better.
DiogenesDue wrote:
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
guys?
Is this where where jump in to say "stop it now!!!"?
You need to be careful about that...you're going to become a meme like "Leave Brittany alone!!!".
where we.
typos prove you are not trying to be too careful, so they're good.
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
"where where" What is it with you guys and typos?
Good catch, "bro"...but you're missing the point, which is that you are fast becoming known for overly emotional reactions to perceived conflict between adults. Interesting home life?
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
jereminatan wrote:
You can never predict what kind of move will tick, inspire, amuse, or bore your opponent. Since you don't know how your opponents deep game psychology might work. You don't know what his game strategies are, what kind of blundering tactics he might fall pray to. The "best move" to them is not the same "best move" to the next opponent.
Solving chess has nothing to do with the types of positions some players might prefer, whether individual players or computers consider some moves to be "best" while different players/computers have a different opinion, or anything with any subjective matters. The question is: is there or is there not any series of moves that will result in a won position no matter what moves the opponent may play?
But that isn't related to the point he was making.
My point is that all of his (and others) talk of game styles, positional preferences, game strategies, opinions on what is a "best" move and the like don't really bear on the original question.
The trouble is, the unhelpful notion of "with best play" keeps being asserted or it creeps in. The question isn't about "is chess drawn with best play on both sides". It's just about good play, which doesn't contain significant errors.
Subjective preference is a way of trying to counter that, but it doesn't really get at the real point.
Jan 13, 2025
0
#16695
Dio basically just said you can assume someone's personality based on a few words they type, yes, very normal.
Jan 13, 2025
0
#16696
"Best play" is a perfectly well-defined concept in game theoretic terms. I means it only contains moves with the optimum value, where the values are "win/draw/loss".
"Best practical play" is context-dependent, and a rather fuzzier concept, relying as it does on an implicit notion that the opponent makes errors stochastically.
Jan 13, 2025
0
#16697
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
playerafar wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
jereminatan wrote:
You can never predict what kind of move will tick, inspire, amuse, or bore your opponent. Since you don't know how your opponents deep game psychology might work. You don't know what his game strategies are, what kind of blundering tactics he might fall pray to. The "best move" to them is not the same "best move" to the next opponent.
Except that there are a single or small set of moves that are objectively "best" in each position, so the subjective is not really meaningful.
Except that the subjective is nearly always meaningful.
Context.
Agreed.
In some contexts, acknowledgement of the subjective perception of objectivity is little more than a formality.
By chance, do you believe that when you put your hands over your face, you are invisible to others? That is a good example of what happens when you have not learned to understand objective reality. You could add it to your paranormal panoply of powers, I guess.
The subjective exists. Subjectivity.
And is distinct from 'subjective perception' which would be a subset of subjectivity.
Subjectivity takes many forms.
-----------------------------------
Anytime anybody makes an assertion or claim or remark or whatever - in these forums - that person may be subject to disagreement.
When that happens that person has various options.
Quite a list. Its probably an infinite set.
But some of the ones we often see are:
Passivity to the disagreement (often best). Argument or debate. Conflict. Panic. Personalization.
Ignoring. Apathy.
Sometimes one person refutes the other.
And there's group reactions too.
Assertion. Somebody disagrees. One thing we don't often see is
'You disagree? So what? I don't care.'
Would that be healthier than the asserter trying to insist he's more intelligent - as an argument?
It would be a lot smarter.
If the asserter is insecure then he/she will not be able to concede when proven wrong.
-----------------
Somebody 'believes' chess has been solved?
Well - that somebody can believe that 2+2=5. Also.
Or that he/she has unique and superior ability.
Such delusions are usually transient though. And not well organized.
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
Dio basically just said you can assume someone's personality based on a few words they type, yes, very normal.
I didn't assume anything. I asked a question that logically follows from the displayed behavior. You don't have to answer it, but yes, it is pretty normal.
The vital question is "is chess drawn from the starting position if both sides make nothing but good moves" (moves which do not alter the predictable game result). It may take "best play" to achieve such an alteration but it's still only a reflection of the game state at any particular time. The notion of "best play" doesn't enter into the initial quastion. Since no move can improve the predicable result of the game from any position, then good play is any move which is not a significant error, in that it alters the predictable game result.
so many posts