That's what they say.
You Should Be Forced to Resign
Sort:
Ubik42 wrote:
It is really dependent on what the meaning of the word is is.
Did you have to go there?
How ingenious. Yes, yes, yes, why didn't I think about it? This would be a wonderful contribution to chess and weed out ALL the grandmasters who won with brilliant combinations with the aim of checkmate.
Brilliant idea, sir. This should change chess forever.
(sarcasm intended)
TheGrobe wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
actually the wiki article is either a fraud or this only serves to show how ignorant some book smart people are, who have no common sense....
in the context of the sentence, it is raining.....it refers to the thing, otherwise known as the present time and place, instead of saying, here and now , precipitation is occuring....
it makes me wonder if those people even know what the word is means.....
What makes you wonder?
It appears they are oblivious to what existence encompasses. The obvious nature of such people shows that they don't know a suitable pronoun to describe existence, instead they create a pseudo reality that they then know how to describe, because they created it...
TheGrobe wrote:
"But it's already its own subject, self-activating."
Aha! So it's the rain that's raining.
It could be the clouds or the sky also...nature, mother nature, existence, etc...
TheGrobe wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
actually the wiki article is either a fraud or this only serves to show how ignorant some book smart people are, who have no common sense....
in the context of the sentence, it is raining.....it refers to the thing, otherwise known as the present time and place, instead of saying, here and now , precipitation is occuring....
it makes me wonder if those people even know what the word is means.....
What makes you wonder?
I often ask rhetorical questions that I know the answers to, just to make a point....know it all...
TheGrobe wrote:
That's what they say.
Really ? ...
This forum is still active?!
So is Mt Vesuvius.
Four for four. Sweet.
netzach wrote:
So is Mt Vesuvius.
Prove it.
hi
StrengthInPawns wrote:
I've actually undertaken a pretty serious analysis of several million IM+ level games, utilizing the resources of a university's super computing lab for 400+ hours.
The conclusion of my research, which will be published in a journal within the next couple weeks is that there has never been a situation in which either side was down in material by more than five points for two or more moves and gone on to win by force.
Anytime they won was due to horrific blunders on the part of their opponent. But their position was ALWAYS lost after the material deficit for two or more moves.
The journal has a pay-to-read system. I will be posting a link when it is live.
hi
FelixPlatypus wrote:
theMagicRabbit wrote:
netzach wrote:
So is Mt Vesuvius.
Prove it.
Good impression of irontiger!
What are your grounds for comparing him to me ?
Translation:
You're saying he's said something characteristic of something I'd say?
Prove it!
StrengthInPawns wrote:
I've actually undertaken a pretty serious analysis of several million IM+ level games, utilizing the resources of a university's super computing lab for 400+ hours.
The conclusion of my research, which will be published in a journal within the next couple weeks is that there has never been a situation in which either side was down in material by more than five points for two or more moves and gone on to win by force.
Anytime they won was due to horrific blunders on the part of their opponent. But their position was ALWAYS lost after the material deficit for two or more moves.
The journal has a pay-to-read system. I will be posting a link when it is live.
This study could be a good empircal adjunct to the more rigorous mathematical proof I laid out earlier.
At this point the case seems closed: you should be forced to resign when you are down in material. There have been no good arguments against it. A simple java script could implememt it.
I have already written the code and would be happy to donate to chess.com:
if ( (x.material LESS THAN y.material-5) AND (x.playername != "Ubik42") )
{x.resigns();
newgame();}
else {continue();}
Ubik42 wrote:
StrengthInPawns wrote:
I've actually undertaken a pretty serious analysis of several million IM+ level games, utilizing the resources of a university's super computing lab for 400+ hours.
The conclusion of my research, which will be published in a journal within the next couple weeks is that there has never been a situation in which either side was down in material by more than five points for two or more moves and gone on to win by force.
Anytime they won was due to horrific blunders on the part of their opponent. But their position was ALWAYS lost after the material deficit for two or more moves.
The journal has a pay-to-read system. I will be posting a link when it is live.
This study could be a good empircal adjunct to the more rigorous mathematical proof I laid out earlier.
At this point the case seems closed: you should be forced to resign when you are down in material. There have been no good arguments against it. A simple java script could implememt it.
I have already written the code and would be happy to donate to chess.com:
if ( (x.material LESS THAN y.material-5) AND (x.playername != "Ubik42") )
{x.resigns();
newgame();}
else {continue();}
Two things with your code:
first, it does not take into acount a material deficit on the part of "y";
second, as it is writen now if "y" ever gets five points up "x" resigns, this would change chess into a game of Black (a.k.a. "y") trying to take one of White's (a.k.a. "x") Rook's;
third, (math and counting are not my strong suits) I'm not sure you get to write an exception for yourself in to the rules of a classic game.
theMagicRabbit wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
StrengthInPawns wrote:
I've actually undertaken a pretty serious analysis of several million IM+ level games, utilizing the resources of a university's super computing lab for 400+ hours.
The conclusion of my research, which will be published in a journal within the next couple weeks is that there has never been a situation in which either side was down in material by more than five points for two or more moves and gone on to win by force.
Anytime they won was due to horrific blunders on the part of their opponent. But their position was ALWAYS lost after the material deficit for two or more moves.
The journal has a pay-to-read system. I will be posting a link when it is live.
This study could be a good empircal adjunct to the more rigorous mathematical proof I laid out earlier.
At this point the case seems closed: you should be forced to resign when you are down in material. There have been no good arguments against it. A simple java script could implememt it.
I have already written the code and would be happy to donate to chess.com:
if ( (x.material LESS THAN y.material-5) AND (x.playername != "Ubik42") )
{x.resigns();
newgame();}
else {continue();}
Two things with your code:
first, it does not take into acount a material deficit on the part of "y";
second, as it is writen now if "y" ever gets five points up "x" resigns, this would change chess into a game of Black (a.k.a. "y") trying to take one of White's (a.k.a. "x") Rook's;
third, (math and counting are not my strong suits) I'm not sure you get to write an exception for yourself in to the rules of a classic game.
You havent read the code base, "x" and "y" are relative to whose move it is. X is the player on move. The rest of your criticisms have similar issues that come from being a non-professional in the field. Leave the coding to the code gurus, and stick with chess. Thanks for playing.
StrengthInPawns wrote:
His code is absolutely 100% correct and will compile properly in all languages and on all platforms.
I know this because I have subjected it to a 400+ hour analysis using super computers at the disposal of my university.
If you think his code is flawed that is just because you are a pseudointellectual.
How do you get 400+ hours of analysis on code made public 23 minutes ago?
Pronouns are best avoided altogether. (especially when drunk)