--------> intro to logic 101 class
you generous man. No intro no class no school...only an asinine will to repeat for ever the same thing...quite scaring also
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
The repetition of a speculation presented—irrationally—as a fact, warrants the repetition of exposing such irrationality. The latter repetition is rational—exposing an irrationality—the former is in itself irrational.
But those who have nothing valuable to add, while failing to see the importance of a point, will throw childish labels—their only ‘contribution’, buried in poor syntax.
troy7915 wrote:
As for the post above the one I replied to, perhaps the poster wants to make a point at all, instead of countering without any logic whatsoever, and actually make a point that a game can be called ‘perfect’ without exhausting all the possible moves and games. Posting childish remarks without back-up is easy and amounts to nothing but.
Nope. I simply point to the immense amounts of time you devote to "correcting" a former USCF CC Champion.
As for "logic," you need a feel more courses. It shows. (Positivist) hairsplitting over the word "perfect" shows you have lost the thread, QED.
troy7915 wrote:
The repetition of a speculation presented—irrationally—as a fact, warrants the repetition of exposing such irrationality. The latter repetition is rational—exposing an irrationality—the former is in itself irrational.
But those who have nothing valuable to add, while failing to see the importance of a point, will throw childish labels—their only ‘contribution’, buried in poor syntax.
Another choice quote from the Russellian wonderland, without citation?
You apparently can't even cut and paste (plagerize) with verve.
Sorry to Inform.
No need for a silly post with silly labels and poor syntax to be seen again. Once is more than enough.Those who understand the reference, good for them, those who don’t, so be it. The post in question said nothing anyway, and that was pointed out.
troy7915 wrote:
No need for a silly post with silly labels and poor syntax to be seen again. Once is more than enough.Those who understand the reference, good for them, those who don’t, so be it. The post in question said nothing anyway, and that was pointed out.
Have a Nice Day, Troy. I'm sorry you work so hard for it.
zborg wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
As for the post above the one I replied to, perhaps the poster wants to make a point at all, instead of countering without any logic whatsoever, and actually make a point that a game can be called ‘perfect’ without exhausting all the possible moves and games. Posting childish remarks without back-up is easy and amounts to nothing but.
Nope. I simply point to the immense amounts of time you devote to "correcting" a former USCF CC Champion.
As for "logic," you need a feel more courses. It shows. (Positivist) hairsplitting over the word "perfect" shows you have lost the thread, QED.
All the world Champions put together have no clue as to what a perfect game is—again, an argument based on an extremely small experience, compared to the huge amount of games that have not been played, with their respective billions of moves that have not been looked at.
Champion or loser, the fact remains the same, but some are slower than others at grasping it.
Yes, that's what happens in the Russellian wonderland -- Only the Gods of Logic can point out the "facts." Only the Logicians breath that Olympian air. 
Your ego is breathtaking. It doesn't become you.
sorry but i'm accustomed to speak in formal Language and english is so poor that i lost myself
To 4385:
So far you are not pointing any facts. If what I point is not a fact show us, we can all learn. Certainly to suggest that someone is right because they are Champions, former or actual, is irrational— that’s pretty obvious, when you consider that their experience amounts to nothing in the big picture.
And don’t use words you don’t really know what they mean: you have no clue as to what ‘ego’ is.
blacktower01 wrote:
...that i lost myself
Haha! Apparently not completely, which is the highest form of intelligence.
troy7915 wrote:
Actually, there was a very good point in that post above:
Since the OP presents his beliefs about positions and moves being perfect as facts, anybody can present the opposite belief, since a belief doesn’t need any demonstration—it’s just a belief. But he wants to present it as a fact, not as a belief, which given the little we know at the moment, compared to the huge amount that we don’t, has no basis in reality.
Here, the strength of belief is irrelevant: the greater the ignorance, the stronger the belief, to compensate and cover up what’s behind the belief.
Ponzs response made me laugh because I agree with him pretty much about everything. It's just funny he takes it so seriously. All his comments about not telling the truth, bad arguments, etc. I totally agree with. I was just trying to copy his belief. I wonder if he comes down that hard on his own identical belief. Probably the difference though is I dont have a belief, I just have a guess. You and Elroch make the most sense because you say things how they are, not how you want them to be. For all anyone knows whites winning percentage will keep going up over time until a brick wall is hit, where it's proven black can force a win every game.
troy7915 wrote:
To 4385:
So far you are not pointing any facts. If what I point is not a fact show us, we can all learn. Certainly to suggest that someone is right because they are Champions, former or actual, is irrational— that’s pretty obvious, when you consider that their experience amounts to nothing in the big picture.
And don’t use words you don’t really know what they mean: you have no clue as to what ‘ego’ is.
You need to get your head out of your arse -- compare your bolded quote above, QED.
You shift from Freshman Logic 101, to Freshman Anti-Freudian Psychology. Neat trick.
- It’s a move from fact to fact, but if you think something is not a fact, go ahead, refute it. So far you’re just being vulgar with nothing else to say.
- And no, you still have no clue as to what the nature and the structure of the ego is.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
Actually, there was a very good point in that post above:
Since the OP presents his beliefs about positions and moves being perfect as facts, anybody can present the opposite belief, since a belief doesn’t need any demonstration—it’s just a belief. But he wants to present it as a fact, not as a belief, which given the little we know at the moment, compared to the huge amount that we don’t, has no basis in reality.
Here, the strength of belief is irrelevant: the greater the ignorance, the stronger the belief, to compensate and cover up what’s behind the belief.
Ponzs response made me laugh because I agree with him pretty much about everything. It's just funny he takes it so seriously. All his comments about not telling the truth, bad arguments, etc. I totally agree with. I was just trying to copy his belief. I wonder if he comes down that hard on his own identical belief. Probably the difference though is I dont have a belief, I just have a guess. You and Elroch make the most sense because you say things how they are, not how you want them to be. For all anyone knows whites winning percentage will keep going up over time until a brick wall is hit, where it's proven black can force a win every game.
Yes, that is a possibility—it keeps going up until it doesn’t (the percentage of White wins). Which is why the present statistics are not relevant, from the vantage point of a final evaluation of a move, opening or game.
‘For all anyone knows’—exactly.
It’s not even a guess: at this point in time, we can say that anything is a possibility, and that nothing can be ruled out. Now, to rule out something would be a guess, a speculation, a belief. But not based on logic.
Feb 18, 2018
0
#3077
I do belief there is an "objective truth" in chess. And computers may be very helpfull in figuring out the right evaluation of a certain position. In the first match Karpov-Kasparov, (the one aborted after 48 games) Karpov with black played a very remarkable 6th game. Around or on move 20 he played Qa5, placing the last of his pieces on the A-file. I always love watching this position. But was it a good move? Did black have the advantage or was it a dead loss? These sort of questions will be hard to solve for humans but can be answered by computers.
Feb 18, 2018
0
#3078
You can be very confident there is objective truth in chess: it is a mathematical theorem that there is. Every position has a single result with optimal play - 0, 1/2 or 1. Every move is either correct (it maintains the optimal result) or is a blunder (it reduces the optimal result from the point of view of the player who made it).
Sometimes we (or computers) can find this truth. A lot of the time we can just have an opinion whose validity can be tested by results.
Elroch wrote:
You can be very confident there is objective truth in chess: it is a mathematical theorem that there is. Every position has a single result with optimal play - 0, 1/2 or 1. Every move is either correct (it maintains the optimal result) or is a blunder (it reduces the optimal result from the point of view of the player who made it).
Sometimes we (or computers) can find this truth. A lot of the time we can just have an opinion whose validity can be tested by results.
Such an ‘objective truth’ is right now only relative: computers’ horizon is severely limited at the moment...
As for the post above the one I replied to, perhaps the poster wants to make a point at all, instead of countering without any logic whatsoever, and actually make a point that a game can be called ‘perfect’ without exhausting all the possible moves and games. Posting childish remarks without back-up is easy and amounts to nothing but.