Optimissed wrote:
And I think he was misrepresenting. I disagree with some of what tygxc claims but very often it isn't critical, one way or another, to his argument. Just a matter of a few dozen factors of ten in a situation which is unreal anyway. Therefore making an unimportant point by means of misrepresenting an unimportant claim doesn't seem very ...... very something anyway.
Sensible?
People are starting to comment with "interesting" as a response to trolling responses.
Anyone with reasonable powers of observation could tell you that the OP is posting "Hmm." and "Interesting," over and over again to bump their post to the top of recent posts/hot topics.
You just don't seem to be very good at perception, observation, or interpretation.
Nothing would happen, except there'd be more draws in matches between cheaters. Computers aren't eligible for the World Chess Championship or other big competitions, and the best GMs can't even beat current Stockfish consistently, so it would make little difference to the sport if engines perfected chess.
Hello.
Or even little difference to the game??? Is it a good idea, when trying to make a point, to bring in political issues? Do you think that the argument regarding chess being/not being a sport is a political one? Seems it to me/.
I'm using "sport" loosely as something like "competitive game". Esports would be similar. What does politics have to do with anything? Game seems like more casual word to me, something done with friends, rather than professional. But maybe there is a better word in English for what I mean that I don't know
Oh ok. Putting it into perspective, people talk about a game of poker where thousands or £/$ can be won or lost. But fair enough.
Well people also talk about a game of tennis in a set which makes up a match lol. It is just words really. We know what we mean