Seems that someone may be off his meds again.
A large portion of the population here is atleast on the wrong medication.
I take uppers in the morning and downers at night. There are also some prescriptions. More as my hair falls out or turns gray.
The 'guy' will now want to 'make rules' as to what is 'rational and proper'.
Slight problem: he doesn't know but mistakenly thinks that's 'up to him'.
But I and others don't have time to babysit him and have better things to do -
whether its the forum topic or related topics or whatever - including in forums where he's blocked.
The irony in all of this is that @Optimissed is a nearly perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect!
I'm a coffee drinker. Would probably be better off not drinking it.
No downers. Yet.
Multivitamins yes.
And calcium with D3 and magnesium in the same pill.
Apparently you won't absorb much of the calcium unless the other two are present too - with the citrate form being better than the sulphate.
I'm a coffee drinker. Would probably be better off not drinking it.
No downers. Yet.
Multivitamins yes.
And calcium with D3 and magnesium in the same pill.
Apparently you won't absorb much of the calcium unless the other two are present two - with the citrate form being better than the sulphate.
No booze?
My opponents often experience the luck in chess if they play me after wifey has gone to bed. Chances are I’ve had some wine or whisk(e)y.
When you lose, it's because of a skill issue. When you win, it's because of someone else's skill issue. Chess is all about lack of skill, not luck
The 'guy' will now want to 'make rules' as to what is 'rational and proper'.
Slight problem: he doesn't know but mistakenly thinks that's 'up to him'.
But I and others don't have time to babysit him and have better things to do -
whether its the forum topic or related topics or whatever - including in forums where he's blocked.
The irony in all of this is that @Optimissed is a nearly perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect!
Yes. But he wants to bait you.
He can be 'used' in forums where he's not blocked.
A long time ago he tried to threaten me with a report to staff.
So I reminded him that his threat itself was reportable.
He instantly backed off that like it was red-hot. Hasn't repeated that tactic since.
I'm a coffee drinker. Would probably be better off not drinking it.
No downers. Yet.
Multivitamins yes.
And calcium with D3 and magnesium in the same pill.
Apparently you won't absorb much of the calcium unless the other two are present two - with the citrate form being better than the sulphate.
No booze?
My opponents often experience the luck in chess if they play me after wifey has gone to bed. Chances are I’ve had some wine or whisk(e)y.
Hi @Ziryab !
I got off of booze when I was a teenager. Never got back on it.
When I was in Florida for a bit (still a teenager) I was playing another man at chess and was winning.
But then I drank a can of Miller High Life.
Started losing.
I don't think people here are speaking the same language, though I blame that partly on the cryptic jargon of Game Theory... after looking through the wikipedia page I do think if I were to study this topic it could make me worse at chess. But anyway, I believe all Opti's saying is since the game isn't solved we can't use combinatorial mathematics to model it, we have to use algorithms to approximate a solution - that is obvious, that's how engines work... now, perfect information with respect to solving the game I believe is referring to a complete recounting of all moves in the proof. On the other hand, perfect information as the game is played just refers to a knowledge of all the moves made up to that point in the game. Right? Unless I am confused now.
So chess is a game of perfect information when it's played, but not when it comes to solving the game.
i.e. "An important subset of sequential games consists of games of perfect information. A game with perfect information means that all players, at every move in the game, know the previous history of the game and the moves previously made by all other players. An imperfect information game is played when the players do not know all moves already made by the opponent such as a simultaneous move game. Examples of perfect-information games include tic-tac-toe, checkers, chess, and Go. Many card games are games of imperfect information, such as poker and bridge."
@ibrust
Chess is a game of perfect information because we know what's going on.
Your own and your opponent's pieces are set out in front of you.
So are the clocks.
There's no 'secret'.
Unlike in poker where its the reverse. There's 'down cards' for each player.
Plus the order of the rest of the deck is hidden too.
In american football the side with the ball can hide their play using their offensive line.
In marathon running you may not know where the leader is because there's trees and buildings and hills blocking the view. And he might not know where you are.
Somebody wants to nitpick the meaning of the word 'perfect' because the game isn't solved?
-------------------------
If it was solved - there wouldn't be much of a game.
Checkers has apparently been damaged by such a thing.
'game' tends to mean we don't know what the outcome will be before the game starts.
'Game' of perfect information is completely reasonable.
So is 'contest' of perfect information.
In the 100 yard dash the runners and spectators and officials know in advance where the runners start - and know where the finish line is.
Its very simple - the one who hits the finish line first wins.
And its perfect. Perfect information.
The fact that we haven't got the data in advance as to who will be in the lead at any given point - or who will win - doesn't make it 'imperfect game'
And as we observe the race and Continue to have perfect information about the positions of the runners doesn't mean we'll know who the winner is going to be.
Its a contest. We don't know in advance.
But its 'perfect information' at each point.
Could the view of a runner be obscured by another runner?
But there's other vantage points. Different cameras.
------------------
Somebody's pretending that 'perfect' means we know the outcome in advance.
Could we know that by having time machines?
There's no such thing.
@ibrust
Want a shorter one?
Many months ago the 'guy' pretended that chess isn't a game of perfect information because we don't know the outcome. He pretended - in another forum - that if its perfect we should know the outcome.
So another member - using objectivity -
presented a very long number with many digits.
He said " We know perfectly what this number is. Its perfect information.
But that doesn't mean we know what its factors are."
------------------------
short enough?
------------------------------
The Guy went nuts. He tried to do 'damage control'.
But he was embarassed. And beaten.
He didn't try for that pretense for a long time after that.
And then got himself muted for three months.
--------------------------------
The point: people can choose to be fragile and delicate.
Or they can choose to be strong and self-respecting.
But for those who can't distinguish confidence from conceit -because of their own conceit - and therefore resent confidence - then they're going to have the pain and masochism of that.
Its much better to be a strong person.
And to not let things like being blocked bother you.
Within a proof by backward induction you wouldn't have perfect information currently. The concept of perfect information isn't changing, you'd just be applying it at the end of a game or set of hypothetical games while conducting the proof backwards vs. within a specific game you happen to be playing... anyway, I'll let Opti speak for himself, this dysfunctional antagonistic approach you have to your interaction with him is not one I wish to share with you. But when it comes to firmly defending the language of Game Theory... I'm not very interested in doing that either, I spent about 2 hours wading through the wikipedia page earlier and it was a rats nest of cryptic terminology. For example, "perfect information" obviously means something specific within a game theory context, the whole of which involves alot of economic theory, and some advanced math ... if I were to interpret or reinterpret one of these game-theory terms I'd have to be aware of the implications that would have within that framework, which I am not. But from a naive semantic standpoint these terms are sometimes misleading, because for example... you can lack information about the game, i.e. how to actually interpret the moves of the game, while still according to game theory have "perfect information" on the game - and yet perfect implies flawless but... well you're lacking information, obviously not flawless. And when you start debating some of the deeper philosophical assumptions, like whether players should be considered part of the game... it could lead you to reassess how you interpret the language, along with many aspects. But to criticize it I really need to understand it more... though I'm not sure it's worth the time investment. Meanwhile it's sort of a meaningless semantic debate.
The 'guy' will now want to 'make rules' as to what is 'rational and proper'.
Slight problem: he doesn't know but mistakenly thinks that's 'up to him'.
But I and others don't have time to babysit him and have better things to do -
whether its the forum topic or related topics or whatever - including in forums where he's blocked.
The irony in all of this is that @Optimissed is a nearly perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect!
Yes. But he wants to bait you.
He can be 'used' in forums where he's not blocked.
A long time ago he tried to threaten me with a report to staff.
So I reminded him that his threat itself was reportable.
He instantly backed off that like it was red-hot. Hasn't repeated that tactic since.
Clearly the guy has issues. I noticed he has been unable to mount any type of attack in a long time (for him). I'm just going to ignore him going forward. Spending time reading and replying to him is a total waste of time.
The 'guy' will now want to 'make rules' as to what is 'rational and proper'.
Slight problem: he doesn't know but mistakenly thinks that's 'up to him'.
But I and others don't have time to babysit him and have better things to do -
whether its the forum topic or related topics or whatever - including in forums where he's blocked.
The irony in all of this is that @Optimissed is a nearly perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect!
Yes. But he wants to bait you.
He can be 'used' in forums where he's not blocked.
A long time ago he tried to threaten me with a report to staff.
So I reminded him that his threat itself was reportable.
He instantly backed off that like it was red-hot. Hasn't repeated that tactic since.
Clearly the guy has issues. I noticed he has been unable to mount any type of attack in a long time (for him). I'm just going to ignore him going forward. Spending time reading and replying to him is a total waste of time.
Years ago when I came to the public forums I noticed that people disagreeing with him would be trolled by him. And he'd make it personal. And look for a double standard.
Then somebody said that he has a history of mutes by the staff.
But I wanted to be sure. So I asked a staff member.
The staff member confirmed it. He has a history. Going back years and years.
Should we care? No (in my opinion).
But do people have to be passive? Equally no.
Its a matter of preference.
-------------------------------
As for 'perfect information' and 'backward induction' and 'game theory' there could be special definitions in special contextes.
And 'vernacular' and 'jargon' within whatever field.
For example - the term 'weakly solved' is sometimes used for some things.
In a symposium - or a lecture hall - or in a research laboratory -
special phrases (disguised in plain english) may have special meanings in special contextes.
In plain english for public forum purposes chess is a contest of perfect information - so is Olympic sprinting and many other sports.
Tennis improved on itself - with many line calls now verified by camera.
In poker and many card games - its a game of incomplete information and it can even continue to be imperfect. After a hand is over - even the winner of the hand might not have to show his cards - depending on how the hand ended.
Incomplete information and therefore not perfect information.
Idea: for those who want to insist that 'perfect information' has to mean a certain thing in a certain context of 'language' - then they could or can just say 'in this context it means this - in plain english it can mean something else' and then leave it at that and especially not make it personal.
But 'could and can' doesn't mean the same as 'will and do'.
Chess skill didn't determine the outcome because no complete chess game was ever played. A chess game requires two players and because this condition wasnt met a website or another administrative body had to resolve the situation outside of chess principles.
One of the "conditions of a chess game", as announced at every tournament/website, is that a player must finish the game within prescribed time limits. As you have previously stated that is ridiculous to say that games won/lost on time are not a "complete chess game" it must be that time wins/losses are actual games.
There is no mandate in the rules that both players must be present at the board/online for the entire length of any game. If a player is gone when their time expires they lose just as surely as if they were standing at the board hesitating. It is not some sort of special case that needs administrative action.
Suppose player A manages to find a clever combination and achieve a theoretically winning endgame against much-higher-rated player B. Should player B have a temper tantrum, sit around furiously cursing his own foolishness, and stomp off to the hotel bar for a stiff brandy, he will lose on time if he tarries too long and his time expires. If player A sees his opponent sink deep into thought and leaves to visit the restroom, slips on the wet floor, strikes his head on a sink and gets rushed to the hospital in a coma he will lose the game on time. Same result either way--fail to complete the game on time, suffer the loss.
In online play the program website doesn't even know why they don't get a move from a player, the program just sees the time expire and posts the result, even though it might have been due to a player's device malfunctioning.
@mpaetz is correct.
The rules - the clocks - the posted results - 'game' - and players are all internal to chess and all five are essential to chess in its everyday meaning.
And both players and 'game' are subject to chance and luck.
If somebody wants to hold that chess is 'only' its rules - then yeah in that case they've got a case.
I think its kind of obvious though - that when the opening poster made this forum he didn't define 'chess' as just its rules.
Is there 'luck' in algebra? Well - in the exam maybe.
Chess skill didn't determine the outcome because no complete chess game was ever played. A chess game requires two players and because this condition wasnt met a website or another administrative body had to resolve the situation outside of chess principles.
One of the "conditions of a chess game", as announced at every tournament/website, is that a player must finish the game within prescribed time limits. As you have previously stated that is ridiculous to say that games won/lost on time are not a "complete chess game" it must be that time wins/losses are actual games.
There is no mandate in the rules that both players must be present at the board/online for the entire length of any game. If a player is gone when their time expires they lose just as surely as if they were standing at the board hesitating. It is not some sort of special case that needs administrative action.
Suppose player A manages to find a clever combination and achieve a theoretically winning endgame against much-higher-rated player B. Should player B have a temper tantrum, sit around furiously cursing his own foolishness, and stomp off to the hotel bar for a stiff brandy, he will lose on time if he tarries too long and his time expires. If player A sees his opponent sink deep into thought and leaves to visit the restroom, slips on the wet floor, strikes his head on a sink and gets rushed to the hospital in a coma he will lose the game on time. Same result either way--fail to complete the game on time, suffer the loss.
In online play the program website doesn't even know why they don't get a move from a player, the program just sees the time expire and posts the result, even though it might have been due to a player's device malfunctioning.
Again. If there is an external reason that makes one of the players unable to continue the game, there is no longer chess game going on. It doesn't matter what it is, you can keep coming up with all the practical examples you want, but this is a theoretical, philosophical matter. Once an external factor disrupts the game, there are no two players to continue the game, the game is cancelled and administrating body will award the point outside of chess principals. The time is an internal part of the game but it only matters if there are two players to play the game.
Seems that someone may be off his meds again.
A large portion of the population here is atleast on the wrong medication.
On the wrong Steroids. And its a small portion.