------> Any moron understands this.
good argumentation
read only this and it's enough
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
Mar 23, 2018
0
#3884
with a rhetorical trick you call moron those who don't agree with you..how patetic
Morons won’t get it, yeah, that’s true. You can call it ‘violence’, but creating a shock may awaken a sleepy, indolent mind.
So it may turn out to be compassion, not violence. The blind wants a pat on his shoulder. But that only encourages their blindness.
Moreover, it’s not violence if the one who used that word is also considering himself, in a much deeper sense, a moron. There are morons and then there are morons, haha!
Mar 23, 2018
0
#3889
how not to give credit to a person who claims to have deciphered the secret of human unhappiness...it's impossible
I meant ‘blind’ in a specific field, like logic. And ‘awakening’ in the same field of not contradicting oneself through a lack of logic. If one cannot understand how the brain functions in a limited field like reasoning and logic, there’s no question of going into the field of life. Much more intelligence is needed there, like understanding the fact that nobody can save anybody, there, but in the field of reasoning it can happen.
It’s not a secret, and the person deserves no credit, as they thought of themselves as ‘morons’!
In the field of life, something does deserve credit, but it’s not human!!!
Mar 23, 2018
0
#3892
---> but in the field of reasoning it can happen.
it's a belief.
or a religious transfert.. want you be the guru ?
ok..you are a guru
i'm happy with this.
In the religious field it’s a fact it cannot happen.
In the field of reasoning help exists: you go step by step with another and the logic improves.
The only problem is that people are conceited and think they know already and won’t accept help, even in a limited field where help does exist.
Socrates, on the other hand, needed access to something much bigger than logic. Haha!
troy You apparently do not understand the "either/or" logical fallacy.You were trying to give me 2 very particular choices, when, in fact, my choice would have been something you never mentioned [and apparently did not even consider ].
Also you do not seem to understand that a belief in something can correspond to a fact as soon as you believe that something.
One does not have to "wait" for a belief to also be a fact.
A scientist believed the earth revolves around the sun. When he believed this--it was also a fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
Mar 23, 2018
0
#3898
ponz, the reason you correctly identified that some of my post was about practical play is that it is practical play that is the basis of the, modest advantage for white that we observe. Such a statistic can result from practical, slightly imperfect play, even in a game where one side has a winning strategy.
Elroch wrote:
ponz, the reason you correctly identified that some of my post was about practical play is that it is practical play that is the basis of the, modest advantage for white that we observe. Such a statistic can result from practical, slightly imperfect play, even in a game where one side has a winning strategy.
One cannot have a winning strategy in theoretical chess as it is a draw. 
[a little joke]
However one can have a winning strategy in practical play. For example i once played The White side of the French Defense against a strong player and he got a draw. 
Later i learned he was an expert with the French Defense. So the next time i played him--i opened with 1. c4 
I agree that the White advantage of the first move makes a big difference in practical play. [if that is what you are saying?]
In a post [a week or so ago?] you mentioned there was some kind of statistic that you observed which gave you some doubts that chess is a draw when neither side made an error? Am i correct in this? If so, would you care to give or explain the statistic?
ponz111 wrote:
troy You apparently do not understand the "either/or" logical fallacy.You were trying to give me 2 very particular choices, when, in fact, my choice would have been something you never mentioned [and apparently did not even consider ].
Also you do not seem to understand that a belief in something can correspond to a fact as soon as you believe that something.
One does not have to "wait" for a belief to also be a fact.
A scientist believed the earth revolves around the sun. When he believed this--it was also a fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
I covered that already. Obviously, if the final outcome of the perfect game is a draw, then it is a draw: it has always been a draw, it is a draw right now, and will always be a draw. Your belief in that outcome or lack of it has no influence on the outcome: it’s still a draw.
But we are not talking about the outcome per se, unrelated to anybody’s perception, but about the outcome from your perspective. There are two facts:
Let’s say you are looking around you. You looked as carefully as you could and saw absolutely nothing. However, you strongly believe in the existence of a tree. It doesn’t matter what it is, let’s just make it a tree. Now, one fact is that the tree exists, and it matters not whether you see it or not. It still exists.
The other fact is your perspective. Do you see it as a fact or do you believe in its existence? The fact that it exists—or in case it doesn’t exist, then the fact is that it doesn’t—is not at stake here. What is at stake is you presenting the tree as a fact that you can see. But remember the beginning premise? You looked and did not see any tree.
Despite its existence, the fact is that you did not see it. You only believed in it. You did not see it—one fact. Despite its existence—another fact. Don’t mix them up in order to justify the lack of seeing, which is the first fact.
Same with the outcome of a perfect game. It may be a draw or it may not. We are only concerned with your presentation as a fact that you can see, that you know it is so.
And I am saying you do not know that. You only strongly believe so. I already said this, it doesn’t matter if it is true or not, what matters is your dishonest presentation as an absolute fact, as is observable by you.
And you cannot observe that as a fact, you can only believe that the object of your belief
(incomplete by nature—this act of speculation/belief) is also true (complete by its very nature—the fact itself). But do not try to hide the fact that you are speculating by the existence of the fact itself. You are still speculating, despite your efforts to hide it.
Another quick thing here, in parenthesis, is your meaningless inclusion of other percentages of beliefs. I said weak belief, as in like 1% belief. And strong belief as in like 99% belief. And you correct me saying that there are more percentages possible. Really? Do you understand how mediocre is that observation? It is understood that any other belief is included there. All the percentages and all the comparative degrees. I only outlined the extremes, not eliminated everything in-between. What kinda brain thinks I did that?
Now, that was just the outcome of the perfect game. Next is the perfect move and the perfect game itself. There is no way to determine whether a move is perfect in the opening phase of a game, short of calculating all the variants.
For the third time now, I have explained that no one has any way of knowing whether the evaluation has changed significantly from one move to another, unless you go through all the sequences of moves.
You can entertain the speculation that 3. Bb5 does not alter the previous evaluation, but without calculating all the lines it is just a speculation (previous evaluation which is also a speculation, starting with the initial position, but that seems too complicated for some folks).
The problem is that you are not aware it’s a speculation.
Finally, as for that ‘either/or’ scenario, the point was that no matter what was the reason for that belief, strong or weak, logic or fantasy, it was still a belief. It still is. You just can’t see it.
troy Your last long statement was way too long for me to respond to without copying the previous statements which were also way too long to be practical. If you would wish to detach that last very long statement from the other very long statement i will be glad to answer it.
However i will note now that in your recent statement you again used the logical fallacy of "strawman"
There are no answers to what was said. You keep showing no evidence for your belief.
says you...
Let’s find out more about belief and fact, since your confusion stems from there. i am not confused but you may be confused as you keep using logical fallacies.
You can be 99% sure of something, or you can be 1% sure of the same thing. The former case implies a strong belief: I don’t care what it’s based on, certain facts that seem to indicate that it’s true or pure fantasy. It is irrelevant for what we’re discussing here.It’s a strong belief. Yes, 99% sure would be a strong belief.
In the latter case, a weak belief is implied. Again, irrelevant what is based on, related facts or wild fantasy. It’s a weak belief. 1% sure makes little sense as if you believe something you are far more than 1% sure.
So you either have a strong belief or a weak belief. NO!! This is the logical fallacy of "either/or" There are more than 2 possibilities. For example one could be 60% sure. Or someone might not have a belief at all about a subject.
But even the strongest of beliefs is not a fact. It’s still a belief. Not a fact. One's belief could be a fact or it might not be a fact. For example the Catholic Church used to believe that the sun revloved around the earth--this belief was not a fact. Another person, a scientist, believed that the earth revolved around the sun--his belief was also a fact. So you are inccorect in stating a belief cannot also be a fact.
Now let’s make sure your brain understands what a fact is. Fact is what happens right now or what happened in the past. This is only one definition of "fact." it is a 2ndary definition in the dictionary where i looked it up. Another definition is "something that actually exists" another definition is "something known to have happened"
another definition is "truth gathered from actual experience" another definition is "something said to be true or supposed to be true.
In a court of law, they are trying to establish only the latter kind of facts. you mean "what happened in the past"?
When doing so, such facts are attempted to be first recollected. That is already a problem, since many factors that have happened after-the-fact have already altered that recollection of the facts. recollection by a witness or someone else is often a rather poor piece of evidence.
Special circumstances in that moment also altered the registration of the facts. I think you mean "recollection of facts" here?
Which is why, in a court of law, they are only trying to establish the facts ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. that is one of the reasons they are only trying to establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt--there are other reasons also.
So the final outcome of such a process results in a belief that things have happened a certain way, not the actual way things have happened. NO!!! Here is one place you go wrong. Because the belief that something have happened in a certain way--very often is coincides with the actual facts!
If that belief proves strong enough to impress a jury, a conviction or acquittal is secured. But it’s just a belief, and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is just baloney for feeble minds. It is not baloney for the judge and jury--it is not baloney for the person or persons accused. It is not baloney for the people interested in the case.
50 years later, it may turn out the ‘facts’ were actually fiction, the work of a overzealous prosecutor, retarded jury, or downright manipulation of the authorities.
Yes, sometimes things thought of as facts can turn out to be untrue. I have given lots of examples of this.
Nothing to do with the actual facts that have happened. Just a belief. this is part of a sentence so am not sure if you are trying to make a point as i do not know what your 2 sentences mean? A belief can be proven untrue--i have never said otherwise--so what is your point? Even something said to be a fact can be proven untrue--i have said this many times.
So stop bringing up the court of law example: it is meaningless. It is meaningless to you as you do not seem to gasp what circumstantial evidence is or how it works? Also you apparently don't care about that particular judicial system.
Focus instead on facts that are happening right now. Why??? I can focus on facts that happened in the past if i wish to!!
As previously said, your son standing in front of you right now is an actual fact. I did not say that at all. You again are using "STRAWMAN" Your continued use of logical fallacies does not speak well for your arguments.
The computer you’re typing on right now is an actual fact, about which there are no doubts. 100% certainty.The computer exists--it is a fact that the computer exists. It would still exist now even if it existed in the past. It could also exist now even if in the past it did not exist. I am 99.99% sure that the computer i am typing on exists.
did you ever consider it might not be me typing on the computer? Did you ever consider i might be typing on something other than a computer?
If you don’t have that clarity and certainty about a perfect move, it is not a fact. this is an ambigous statement. what clarity and what certainty? and what move? Certain moves I am 99.99% sure that they are perfect moves [per the definition of "perfect" we have been using.] Often what someone believes is a fact.
The fact remains that you don’t know, despite hanging on to a strong belief, based on what you think are related facts or pure fantasy. This is another example of "strawman" You are again using a logical fallacy. I do not use pure fantasy to come up with my beliefs.
The only fact is that you are not 100% certain. Therefore, the only fact is that you don’t know. There is a difference between not being 100% certain and not knowing something. One can "know something" if he is 99.99% certain that it is true. The word "know" has many meanings and these includ "discern" "cognize" "perceive" "recognize" and "realize".
Every single response you wrote does not contradict what was said. Like screaming ‘NO!!’ to the court example, where you advance what you thought was wrong with what was said, like they establish what actually happened, instead of baloney, and then you say ‘yes’ it could have been established a non-fact, which agrees with I said.
Stop rushing to respond in fragments; first read a whole idea, then respond, and only if you have a refutation. Doing it in fragments contradicts your logic from fragment to fragment.
You keep missing point after point. Who cares what you writing on is not actually a computer but some other device? Do you understand how stupid that remark is? Whatever it is, I don’t have to know what exactly is —you do. You know whatever it is, and you are 100% certain it’s a fact. It’s not about me being certain about what you write on, it’s about you being certain about that. Mixing up the two is downright stupid.
The next example follows the same pattern: I said OR FANTASY. Do you understand the meaning of ‘or’? Either meaning, strong belief based on something somewhat logical OR fantasy. It doesn’t matter which one it is, the point was THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF A PERFECT GAME IS A SPECULATION. IN OTHER WORDS , YOU ARE NOT PRESENTING A FACT THAT YOU OR ANY FOOL CAN SEE, YOU ARE PRESENTING A SPECULATION.
However clever, however smart, it is still not a fact that anyone can understand what is the outcome of a perfect game. It is a speculation, BASED ON FANTASY OR NOT.
If you are not 100% certain that something is true, then you do not know: you are speculating.
Lastly, I have said it too many times already: the object of a belief can turn out to be a fact. IN THE FUTURE. NOT RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW IT IS ONLY A BELIEF, SOMETHING NO ONE IS 100% SURE ABOUT.
But even if it turns out to be a fact in the future, it doesn’t change its statute of belief and speculation in the present.
Any moron understands this.