empathy is natural to most. Even dogs usually have this. Not so sure about cats...
Ah, no. I don’t want empathy, that is still a small affair, traceable to still being selfish. Someone else suffers and I put myself in their shoes. Then I feel the suffering but only because it’s about me. I suffer, in their shoes: it’s still me, me, me. Self-pity, disguised as something other than pity for oneself.
This is total BS.
...Are you referring to a perfect game of chess that ends in checkmate after 16 moves, or a perfect game that ends in a draw after 16 moves? In the latter case, you would also have to specify the allowable termination conditions (e.g. stalemate, 3-fold repetition, mutual agreement, etc.). You have not yet specified a precise definition for "perfect game", either (there are at least two common definitions in use). And finally, you need to specify whether "16 moves" refers to exactly 31 plies, exactly 32 plies, exactly 31 or 32 plies, or exactly 16 plies (the word "moves" is ambiguous in a formal mathematical context).
Such questions must be formalized properly before the prospect of a mathematical proof can even be entertained.
How the game ends isn't part of the criteria. It's only necessary that both players play perfectly and aren't aware of their opponent's infallibility. Since the question is about perfect play, the outcome of the game would be known if/when the question is answered (unless of course there are no perfect games with 16 moves).
In such a game White plays to win, but if he cannot win he plays for a draw. If he can neither win nor draw he plays to survive for as long as possible. Black also plays to win, but if he cannot win he plays for a draw. If he can neither win nor draw then he plays to survive for as long as possible.
I'm sorry, but your question has still not been properly formalized. You failed to specify the allowable termination conditions (e.g. stalemate, 3-fold repetition, mutual agreement, etc.), and the above definition of perfect play is not mathematically precise. In a theoretically drawn position, is White's goal to make the game as long as possible, as short as possible, or as difficult as possible for Black to defend (according to some formal definition of "difficult")? This is not necessarily the only ambiguity in your definition, but it's an important one.
...Have you done any of your own research on this topic? If so, I would like to see some of the relevant material you've found. I'm asking this purely out of curiosity, by the way.
A little but not much. I was curious if any expertly-played games ended in a short number of moves. One is Carlsen vs. Anand:
1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.d4 c6 5.O-O Nf6 6.b3 O-O 7.Bb2 Bf5 8.c4 Nbd7 9.Nc3 dxc4 10.bxc4 Nb6 11.c5 Nc4 12.Bc1 Nd5 13.Qb3 Na5 14.Qa3 Nc4 15.Qb3 Na5 16.Qa3 Nc4 1/2-1/2.
Although it ended by agreement, I did find it interesting that it simplified enough that both sides believed there was little chance to win so they called it a draw.
Mathematically speaking, "expertly played" is ill-defined, and does not mean the same thing as provably perfect. So the above game doesn't really qualify as relevant material with regard to this topic.
...What guesswork was presented as mathematical proof? What result was said guesswork supposed to prove?
If I see an intriguing comment by anyone I may ask if it's opinion or proven knowledge. I mentioned it because you asked why I pointed out that there's a distinction between speculation and provable statements.
No, I never asked that. I pointed out that "There's a distinction between speculation and provable statements." is a tautology, which means there is no reason for you to say it (other than to insult people's intelligence). I also observed that you have a tendency to dismiss all forms of logical, empirical, and statistical evidence presented here, just because (in your opinion) nothing short of a published mathematical proof is worth anything whatsoever. And finally, I suggested that you try to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion; instead of "X has not been mathematically disproven, so X is possible.", how about "X is true, and here is the evidence/proof:"?
empathy is natural to most. Even dogs usually have this. Not so sure about cats...
Ah, no. I don’t want empathy, that is still a small affair, traceable to still being selfish. Someone else suffers and I put myself in their shoes. Then I feel the suffering but only because it’s about me. I suffer, in their shoes: it’s still me, me, me. Self-pity, disguised as something other than pity for oneself.
This is total BS.
Of course, a vulgar, insensitive old brain cannot see the deception involved in the so-called empathy. The ego cannot see that it touches every action one undertakes, including ‘ watching others suffer’.
As long you’re not free of the ego, old man, you must remain blind.
will computers ever solve chess becomes "you must be free of the ego". how come other members get muted for trolling peoples threads like that ?
You don’t have anything to say about either subjects. The only worry you have is to worry about what other people worry about—as per your projections, which incite to conflict. That’s in the spirit of trolling you so condemn.
I don’t mind being judged. But judgment is a brain problem.
don't you have your own crazy thread for spouting your propaganda?
Not understanding something, one calls it ‘propaganda’. But nothing is being propagated. The poster was simply unable to read without their personal agenda calling the shots of comprehending the content.
get rid of your ego first. you might not then be contradicting yourself approximately 100% of the time.
Finding contradictions in what one says indicates bias of the personal kind. Interpreting words according to one’s personal bias.
I don't see that anyone is arguing about there not being a ceiling...only how high the ceiling will be.
You'll need to provide some actual numbers, then, in order to properly clarify your position. How much of an improvement do you expect self-trained engines to provide, in terms of approximate Elo rating differences? How confident are you, in terms of estimated probabilities, that such an improvement will be irrefutably demonstrated within the next 5 years? Without these details, your argument becomes nothing more than an exercise in bet-hedging; it sounds like you're just trying to ensure your prediction will be right regardless of what ends up happening in the near future.
Ermm, I don't see anyone, on any threads, that is predicting Elo rating differentials over time. I don't see a need to hold to some standard here...but if it makes you feel better, I will say that I feel that the "new" breed of engines will handily eclipse traditional engines in 5 years time. That's an opinion and a prediction...but not a declaration of certainty or proof, and that's the difference here. I don't really care if anyone here believes it, because they will find out soon enough anyway .
No prediction of approximate Elo rating differences... can't say I'm surprised.
Translation: You're hedging your bets.
As for the rest of your post, the majority of it consists of unsupported and purely deflective arguments in which no attempt is made to provide legitimate evidence. Because of this, I have no reason to respond to all of it.
It consists of responses to attacks, because you decided to attack. It's really that simple. As for doing extra homework because of it, well, I guess I'm not dumb enough to get tricked into it just because you are questioning me? I'm not that insecure.
Excuses being made... very predictable.
Translation: There is no evidence to support your opinion.
Ermm, yes, I know all about the manipulation of the A0/Stockfish match and was one of the earliest and most vociferous decriers of Google's shenanigans here in these very forums...
In one of the A0 vs. Stockfish examples shown here (not positive if it was this thread offhand), A0 moves its king up the board despite queens being on the board to shore up a positional lockdown, apparently certain of its safety, in a position that traditional engines are tweaked to be overly cautious in.
For your own credibility's sake, I'd strongly recommend that you avoid further references to the AlphaZero-Stockfish match in your arguments.
I'm not really claiming to be an expert on Alpha Zero. I won't really pay attention past the casual until they actually play a real match. If you don't like my comments, it's no skin off my nose.
Yes, which is why you should never have included references to AlphaZero's games in your argument.
Translation: Evidence withdrawn.
It sure seems like one of the main Stockfish developers immediately went to work on Leela, while Komodo rushed to build Monte Carlo.
This is as close as you came to supporting any of your arguments in post #7980. There are still two problems, though:
Well, your earlier comments certainly implied it. It's only in this latest post that you are suddenly reserving judgment.
Translation: You're backpedaling.
To adequately support your position, estimates of expected Elo rating increases must be cited from a reliable source, such as direct quotes from Stockfish and/or Komodo developers.
If I were really arguing a position. maybe. You seem to have taken the fact that I felt that this type of engine would eventually emerge and re-write the landscape as some personal affront. I also predicted that humans need to get off the planet in the next 500-750 years, before Hawking came out and said it...is that also going to rub you the wrong way? People have ideas.
Looks like it's official! And no, it would be somewhat ridiculous for me (or anyone) to challenge speculations of what may happen centuries from now (see post #7852).
Translation: You've finally conceded this debate.
Yes. Well, they would pretty much have to be, wouldn't they? In a well-balanced game, the entire point is to narrow the ease with which one person wins over another, because easy wins = boring game. So, chess rules and play over history evolve towards a draw. Not in dispute. The dispute is whether human beings have managed to achieve a game that is a forced draw when the complexity of the game tree is beyond their ken/ability to contain.
You're claiming that neither the practical tendency nor the theoretical tendency of a game has any bearing whatsoever on its likely game-theoretic value. You support this assertion by pointing out that any game with enduring popularity would necessarily have the same drawish tendencies -- except... hey, wait a second...
[…]
{…]
You are looking for more rigor from my arguments, but I don't see that this warrants any more rigor as things stand.
[…]
No attempt made to defend the disastrous argument quoted above, and no sign of addressing any of the evidence I previously mentioned with regard to the game-theoretic value of chess. Given the generally capitulatory nature of the rest of your reply, I should probably have expected as much.
Translation: Until further notice, you're conceding that a forced win from the starting position is unlikely.
empathy is natural to most. Even dogs usually have this. Not so sure about cats...
Ah, no. I don’t want empathy, that is still a small affair, traceable to still being selfish. Someone else suffers and I put myself in their shoes. Then I feel the suffering but only because it’s about me. I suffer, in their shoes: it’s still me, me, me. Self-pity, disguised as something other than pity for oneself.
This is total BS.
Of course, a vulgar, insensitive old brain cannot see the deception involved in the so-called empathy. The ego cannot see that it touches every action one undertakes, including ‘ watching others suffer’.
As long you’re not free of the ego, old man, you must remain blind.
this is also total BS
Wooooow btickler tries to change the world trying to fight fake news wooow impressive! clap clap clap haaaaaa how about stop spreading BS yourself. You should wipe your mouth because it is brown from the sheet you're talking about.
Smositional here is a perfect example of the kind of lowbrow malice I am talking about.
Hey btickler, why is your mouth so brown? HAHAHAHAHA
Do you somehow believe that these exchanges make *me* look bad? Get thee to chesskids.com.
Of course, btickler. I totally destroyed you.
empathy is natural to most. Even dogs usually have this. Not so sure about cats...
Ah, no. I don’t want empathy, that is still a small affair, traceable to still being selfish. Someone else suffers and I put myself in their shoes. Then I feel the suffering but only because it’s about me. I suffer, in their shoes: it’s still me, me, me. Self-pity, disguised as something other than pity for oneself.
This is total BS.
Of course, a vulgar, insensitive old brain cannot see the deception involved in the so-called empathy. The ego cannot see that it touches every action one undertakes, including ‘ watching others suffer’.
As long you’re not free of the ego, old man, you must remain blind.
this is also total BS
Apart from the consistent vulgarity( which indicates frustration), the fact remains: you are not free of the ego.
empathy is natural to most. Even dogs usually have this. Not so sure about cats...
Ah, no. I don’t want empathy, that is still a small affair, traceable to still being selfish. Someone else suffers and I put myself in their shoes. Then I feel the suffering but only because it’s about me. I suffer, in their shoes: it’s still me, me, me. Self-pity, disguised as something other than pity for oneself.
This is total BS.
Of course, a vulgar, insensitive old brain cannot see the deception involved in the so-called empathy. The ego cannot see that it touches every action one undertakes, including ‘ watching others suffer’.
As long you’re not free of the ego, old man, you must remain blind.
this is also total BS
Apart from the consistent vulgarity( which indicates frustration), the fact remains: you are not free of the ego.
Chess is a sport!
Well, it sounds nice to say we can entertain facts within our mind without judgement, but then what's the point of having a mind in the first place? In any case, that's not possible.
Disconnecting the experience of existing from our reaction to it is a calming idea. Probably some good meditation in there or something. Very practical, and I like that you seem to be offering practical guidance, but I'm not sure there's anything more to it than that. Hmm.
"Who or what is that which is trying or not to get outside of oneself?"
Yeah, consciousness is an intractable problem. Like the eye trying to observe itself sort of paradox.
I say it is possible for judgment to end. But first look at how he mind is working: an image comes to mind, then what happens? That image is judged according to certain preexisting standards, which vary all the time: ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘ one likes it’, or ‘one dislikes it’. Now if you observe further, you have two options: you can stay with the initial image, pushing the judgment away—but that obscures the ‘pusher’, so it creates other problems. Or you can pursue the new image, which is the judgment. Then you will see that the judgment is followed by another judgment, ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘dislike’ or ‘like’. Pursuing this new judgment is encountered by yet another judgment and so on. Is there an end? Not quite, but at least you realize how judgment is embedded in our thinking patterns, which gives one their personal, hidden ( even from themselves ) agenda.
Judgment is there, deeper than a simple resolution, ‘I won’t judge’. It is still there, running at all levels. Of course, choosing a red Lambo over a white Mercedes is a judgment which creates no conflict, in itself. The problems appear when one identifies with a group of people driving a Mercedes over another one that drives a Lambo, or an old Dodge for that matter.
Constantly judging according to some acquired petty standards, which change according to the environment.
As for who’s trying to get outside of oneself, one can only find out if their mind is quiet. In stillness the answer to that question is obvious.
I've heard this sort of thing before, it's a nice meditation sort of exercise. You shouldn't try to stop your reactions, but to be aware of them, and aware of your "self" which exists separate from these things. So, yeah, sometimes you're influenced, but never controlled. That sort of thing.
As for the self trying to get outside of oneself, I'm not sure what that one is all about.
Wooooow btickler tries to change the world trying to fight fake news wooow impressive! clap clap clap haaaaaa how about stop spreading BS yourself. You should wipe your mouth because it is brown from the sheet you're talking about.
Smositional here is a perfect example of the kind of lowbrow malice I am talking about.
Hey btickler, why is your mouth so brown? HAHAHAHAHA
Do you somehow believe that these exchanges make *me* look bad? Get thee to chesskids.com.
Of course, btickler. I totally destroyed you.
Ah, so that was the motive. I wonder if one realizes what has been destroyed: a few images and opinions? That’s not much...
empathy is natural to most. Even dogs usually have this. Not so sure about cats...
Ah, no. I don’t want empathy, that is still a small affair, traceable to still being selfish. Someone else suffers and I put myself in their shoes. Then I feel the suffering but only because it’s about me. I suffer, in their shoes: it’s still me, me, me. Self-pity, disguised as something other than pity for oneself.
This is total BS.
Of course, a vulgar, insensitive old brain cannot see the deception involved in the so-called empathy. The ego cannot see that it touches every action one undertakes, including ‘ watching others suffer’.
As long you’re not free of the ego, old man, you must remain blind.
this is also total BS
Apart from the consistent vulgarity( which indicates frustration), the fact remains: you are not free of the ego.
Chess is a sport!
Haha! Good change of subject.
Not fighting others is not enough.
Not fighting yourself is the key to not fighting others. That is a good place to begin. And what are we fighting others for anyway? A few ideas we get ourselves attached to?
"what are we fighting others for anyway"
I guess generally people want others to agree with them / the world to change for them.
So, you know, a person will decide everyone else is wrong, or that the world is crazy (not themselves), or simplify issues to involve only the right side and the wrong side.
So yeah, it makes sense to focus on yourself, if only for practical reasons. Although sometimes the world is legitimately screwed up. Probably part of being realistic means to accept some level of suffering.
Is there a separation between ‘the rest of the world’ and oneself? On the surface we are different: different likes, dislikes, passions, opinions.
But if one gets deeper into oneself there are no differences at all. Which means what?
Now that's interesting. Hmm.
I guess you mean to change the world you start with yourself... but still, the fact I am, or may be, thinking of myself as separate from the world. That would certainly be part of the problem and something I would fix by fixing myself. That's very interesting.
Wanting to change the world is the wrong place to start. Why do I want to change the world? So I can feel good about myself: I’m an important person, I saved the world, me, me, me. Which is the very pattern that needs change.
I don’t want to change the world. I don’t even wantt to change myself. I just want to understand. That would be the right place to start.
I think it's even more instinctual / selfish. I want to change the world so the world exists the way I want it to. So that I have no conflicts with it.
Even if it's someone wants to, let's say, feed the starving children. Where does that come from? The person doesn't like living in a world with starving children. Sure it helps others, but it starts with the self. That's partly why I wasn't so interested in that conclusion, so I'm glad you were going that direction with it.
Hmm, maybe you logged off for now.
Well it was a fun conversation, you should post in the forums more often
Fun is the last thing I want from a convo.
Fun for me is talking to someone who both disagrees with me and makes good points. I get to think and learn. Either one by itself is fun, but both together is great 
Well, it sounds nice to say we can entertain facts within our mind without judgement, but then what's the point of having a mind in the first place? In any case, that's not possible.
Disconnecting the experience of existing from our reaction to it is a calming idea. Probably some good meditation in there or something. Very practical, and I like that you seem to be offering practical guidance, but I'm not sure there's anything more to it than that. Hmm.
"Who or what is that which is trying or not to get outside of oneself?"
Yeah, consciousness is an intractable problem. Like the eye trying to observe itself sort of paradox.
I say it is possible for judgment to end. But first look at how he mind is working: an image comes to mind, then what happens? That image is judged according to certain preexisting standards, which vary all the time: ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘ one likes it’, or ‘one dislikes it’. Now if you observe further, you have two options: you can stay with the initial image, pushing the judgment away—but that obscures the ‘pusher’, so it creates other problems. Or you can pursue the new image, which is the judgment. Then you will see that the judgment is followed by another judgment, ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘dislike’ or ‘like’. Pursuing this new judgment is encountered by yet another judgment and so on. Is there an end? Not quite, but at least you realize how judgment is embedded in our thinking patterns, which gives one their personal, hidden ( even from themselves ) agenda.
Judgment is there, deeper than a simple resolution, ‘I won’t judge’. It is still there, running at all levels. Of course, choosing a red Lambo over a white Mercedes is a judgment which creates no conflict, in itself. The problems appear when one identifies with a group of people driving a Mercedes over another one that drives a Lambo, or an old Dodge for that matter.
Constantly judging according to some acquired petty standards, which change according to the environment.
As for who’s trying to get outside of oneself, one can only find out if their mind is quiet. In stillness the answer to that question is obvious.
I've heard this sort of thing before, it's a nice meditation sort of exercise. You shouldn't try to stop your reactions, but to be aware of them, and aware of your "self" which exists separate from these things. So, yeah, sometimes you're influenced, but never controlled. That sort of thing.
As for the self trying to get outside of oneself, I'm not sure what that one is all about.
You’re not sure because the mind is not still. So basically, still the mind and the question dissolves itself. But how? They have tried every trick in the book and it doesn’t work.
Meditation is not an exercise, nor is it as nice as one imagines it to be. Being aware of one’s reactions doesn’t work either, despite many fake gurus promoting that trend. But it leads nowhere.
Wooooow btickler tries to change the world trying to fight fake news wooow impressive! clap clap clap haaaaaa how about stop spreading BS yourself. You should wipe your mouth because it is brown from the sheet you're talking about.
Smositional here is a perfect example of the kind of lowbrow malice I am talking about.
Hey btickler, why is your mouth so brown? HAHAHAHAHA
Do you somehow believe that these exchanges make *me* look bad? Get thee to chesskids.com.
Of course, btickler. I totally destroyed you.
Ah, so that was the motive. I wonder if one realizes what has been destroyed: a few images and opinions? That’s not much...
SHOCKING
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
empathy is natural to most. Even dogs usually have this. Not so sure about cats...
Ah, no. I don’t want empathy, that is still a small affair, traceable to still being selfish. Someone else suffers and I put myself in their shoes. Then I feel the suffering but only because it’s about me. I suffer, in their shoes: it’s still me, me, me. Self-pity, disguised as something other than pity for oneself.