Troy prefers to paint by dumping the paint on the floor and mopping the floor with your head.
Yeah, he asks more questions than he makes statements. Which is fine so long as I find the colors on the floor interesting
When one finds an answer for themselves it’s quite different than if they get it from another, even when they agree with the answer 100%.
Yeah, for sure. That's why I don't mind so much.
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.
Here, you are both committing a basic logical fallacy known as begging the question. You (plural) claim that every human action is selfish, because humans always act based solely upon what they want. The problem is that the premise (people always act based solely on what they want) effectively assumes the conclusion (everything people do is selfish), so no one who disagrees with your conclusion is going to accept your premise without further justification.
The justification comes when the selfish behavior has ceased. Which includes the request that this convo be moved elsewhere, because apart from the fact that there is not much else to say about the topic of solving chess, it is superseded by something which affects everybody’s lives and upon which solving depends the very survival of this planet, at least in the short term.
To 8162: But the brain of most people develop the same general patterns.
Ok.
I mean, most leaves look the same. Grass. Flowers.
My heart pumps blood the way yours does, the way billions do.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I’m talking about the patterns of fear, attachment, belief, greed, control—patterns which shape our lives the most.
Ok, but that can be explained biologically, so it's not a good argument against "our mind is in our brain, and our brain is in our skull"
It’s not an argument against what you said. Isn’t the mind itself one of those brain patterns? That’s why I brought up patterns first.
---
Yeah, but I have strong justification for it: your brain is isolated, and the function of DNA is to preserve itself...
Once again, you start with a premise that assumes the conclusion, and one which is lacking in evidence. There is strong evidence to support the claim that a function of DNA is self-preservation, but certainly none to suggest that self-preservation is its only function.
In any case, this topic has been off topic for 100s of pages...
Not this off-topic. The subjects dominating the last several pages have no logical connection at all with any other subject that has ever been discussed here. And this is essentially a very fast-moving conversation between two people.
The justification comes when the selfish behavior has ceased.
You can't just point to examples of selfish human behavior, and then make an unsupported generalization to all humans and all human actions. Or at least, you can't do this and then call it a logical argument, if you expect to be taken seriously.
... because apart from the fact that there is not much else to say about the topic of solving chess, it is superseded by something which affects everybody’s lives and upon which solving depends the very survival of this planet, at least in the short term.
All three statements contained in the above sentence are opinions, which in this case could not possibly be supported by anything apart from more opinions.
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.
Translation of all of the above: you're a pedantic tool. Shoo. Not worth the time. I've conceded nothing because I haven't bet anything. If I said blue were my favorite color, you'd be trying to tell me I have conceded the argument of blue being the best color (not claimed) because I didn't provide RGB values (not needed).
I think the new breed of engines will eclipse the old regime in about 5 years or so. That's it. It's my opinion, based on my systems/computer background, but I sure as heck don't need to shore it up for the likes of you (and before you ask, I don't really care to lay out my entire career for your benefit either....you can dig it up from my posting history, it's been mentioned a few times in my years here)...because I'm not trying to evangelize my opinion. I don't care if you think I'm right...you'll find out soon enough anyway. I only debate with those who are trying to spread their BS as gospel. You are just arguing to be right. I don't have time to play some little ego game with you, because you're nobody to me. Ok, you're articulate and you have an axe to grind...but why does that obligate me in any way to respond to your demands for information? It's kind of comical. Stamp your feet somewhere else.
As for a forced win from the starting position, I am already and always have been of the opinion that chess is more likely to be proven a draw than a forced win. Oh, you assumed otherwise? Time to do your own homework, I guess...like your assumption of my claiming 4000 rating, it's just in your head, so don't expect to find anything. Unlike a lot of posters here, I am very consistent. Don't bother with any more teenage angst or unilateral claims of victory unless you can actually come up with something I actually claimed and tried to beat people over the head with. See you...never?
They are opinions to you., but facts to me.
This is not a debate. You either see these facts or you don’t. If you don’t, you don’t, leave it alone. No one is trying to convince you of anything.
The justification comes when the selfish behavior has ceased.
You can't just point to examples of selfish human behavior, and then make an unsupported generalization to all humans and all human actions. Or at least, you can't do this and then call it a logical argument, if you expect to be taken seriously.
... because apart from the fact that there is not much else to say about the topic of solving chess, it is superseded by something which affects everybody’s lives and upon which solving depends the very survival of this planet, at least in the short term.
All three statements contained in the above sentence are opinions, which in this case could not possibly be supported by anything apart from more opinions.
They are opinions to you, but facts to me.
This is not a debate. You either see these facts or you don’t. If you don’t, you don’t, leave it alone. No one is trying to convince you of anything.
.
Do you somehow believe that these exchanges make *me* look bad? Get thee to chesskids.com.
Of course, btickler. I totally destroyed you.
Sure. You destroyed me. Oh woe is me, for I am destroyed! You never gave up. What a trooper. You kept making new sockpuppets and coming back, week after week and month after month and year after year, until you finally won...congrats!
Okay...is your small little malicious mind happy now? Or does your self-worth still hinge on getting revenge for losing so many rounds? Go play Dragonvale or something...
There are two main reasons it is so hard to solve chess. Both come from the fact that there are so many possible positions. The first is storing your analyzed moves in a way that is physically possible to lookup a postion. The second is that if you could store the data, youd still have to analyze all positions. That could take very very long.
I know for a very well thought out theoretical fact that there is a way to store and lookup positions in a computer. I also know we can analze the positions if given enough computing time.
So my solution to the first part relies on a database that stores only memory addresses of next possible moves or a zero if that move and subsequently each move after that move cant force a win. So in theory you store no actual game data and you can totally delete the known unwinnable possitions from the database. SO you really only would need to keep track of the winning moves. The position lookup in this database would rely on the computer being able to spit out a sequence of moves that would get the board into the state of the board that you want to lookup. I havent coded that part. But if i had that i think the db would work.
Then the problem of analyzing boards Could be optimized quite a bit. For example if I analyzed the computer response to a persons move well enough that it ocassionally would guess the correct forced win response some of the time you would in theory not have to analyze all the other possible computer resonses. This Could save having to analyze many losing moves. So nobody knows how many positions we actually would have to even analyze to solve chess.
So in conclusion i firmly believe it will be solved one day. Then we may all have to take up GO. (:
Msg me if want to try to solve the last few coding challenges of the database.
A computer beat the Go World Champion as well...
In my opinion there is some merit to what he said. An argument can be made that selflessness is ultimately selfish at its root. For example, I was cursed with lots of empathy. When a person or animal is in pain I feel compelled to do something about it. If I help ease the pain of others it makes me feel better.
In my opinion there is some merit to what he said. An argument can be made that selflessness is ultimately selfish at its root. For example, I was cursed with lots of empathy. When a person or animal is in pain I feel compelled to do something about it. If I help ease the pain of others it makes me feel better.
That’s the point : it comes back to you, the central preoccupation of the self. Same pattern.
Compassion, on the other hand, never comes back to you. You are out of the picture.
That’s why I dismiss empathy: one is still in the picture.
.
---
Yeah, but I have strong justification for it: your brain is isolated, and the function of DNA is to preserve itself...
Once again, you start with a premise that assumes the conclusion, and one which is lacking in evidence. There is strong evidence to support the claim that a function of DNA is self-preservation, but certainly none to suggest that self-preservation is its only function.
In any case, this topic has been off topic for 100s of pages...
Not this off-topic. The subjects dominating the last several pages have no logical connection at all with any other subject that has ever been discussed here. And this is essentially a very fast-moving conversation between two people.
Lacking in evidence? F*** you. Species that don't pass on genes go extinct. What could be more logical than that?
---
Yes, this is more off topic, but it's about a million times more intellectual. So if you object I guess that says more about you than me.
...I'm sorry, but your question has still not been properly formalized...
(Re: perfect game of chess with 16 moves)
I would just use the normal rules of chess as codified in the FIDE rulebook. To me the question is most interesting if other criteria aren't added. But anyone can detail their own assumptions and see if a proof can be formulated as to why such a game does or does not exist.
Do you somehow believe that these exchanges make *me* look bad? Get thee to chesskids.com.
Of course, btickler. I totally destroyed you.
Sure. You destroyed me. Oh woe is me, for I am destroyed! You never gave up. What a trooper. You kept making new sockpuppets and coming back, week after week and month after month and year after year, until you finally won...congrats!
Okay...is your small little malicious mind happy now? Or does your self-worth still hinge on getting revenge for losing so many rounds? Go play Dragonvale or something...
Muha
In my opinion there is some merit to what he said. An argument can be made that selflessness is ultimately selfish at its root. For example, I was cursed with lots of empathy. When a person or animal is in pain I feel compelled to do something about it. If I help ease the pain of others it makes me feel better.
That’s the point : it comes back to you, the central preoccupation of the self. Same pattern.
Compassion, on the other hand, never comes back to you. You are out of the picture.
That’s why I dismiss empathy: one is still in the picture.
.
Compassion is a byproduct of empathy.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
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.
Here, you are both committing a basic logical fallacy known as begging the question. You (plural) claim that every human action is selfish, because humans always act based solely upon what they want. The problem is that the premise (people always act based solely on what they want) effectively assumes the conclusion (everything people do is selfish), so no one who disagrees with your conclusion is going to accept your premise without further justification.
Btw, this conversation is so long, so fast-moving, and so off-topic that I really think it needs to be moved to a separate location. You guys are completely burying all of the on-topic posts under a sea of unrelated material, and I don't really think that is fair to those who want to discuss the prospect of computers eventually solving chess.
Yeah, but I have strong justification for it: your brain is isolated, and the function of DNA is to preserve itself. So you do what you do because of... you, and for yourself.
Now, we can get all metaphysical and oh what about morality and God and such. Ok, that's fine, but I'm saying it's a perfectly reasonable axiom to take on: that humans act selfishly.
---
In any case, this topic has been off topic for 100s of pages.
Non-stop "is chess a draw" BS has nothing to do with solving chess.
Especially when it goes on repeat FOR F*****G MONTHS NOW. I mean really.
Ponz: Morphy drew one day, in his sketchbook, with colored pencil. QED chess is a draw.
Someone else: That's dumb. Stop it.
[6 months later]
Ponz: 1.e4 e5 is a perfect game, and is a draw on move 2. QED chess is a draw.
Someone else: That's dumb. Stop it.