You Should Be Forced to Resign - Chess Forums - Page 50

Petermh5 · 2013-04-06T20:11:39-07:00

You should automatically lose the game should you ever be down more than five points for two full turns. You shouldn't be forced to play out a won game tens of moves down to the checkmate just because your opponent is being a prick. There were numerous games that were resigned to Kasparov when

Ubik42

May 16, 2013

0

#981

theMagicRabbit wrote:

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?

Again, this criticism from non professionals that fail to take into account parrallel computing ( as well as the obvious quantum effects).

Irontiger

May 16, 2013

0

#982

Ubik42 wrote:

theMagicRabbit wrote:

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?

Again, this criticism from non professionals that fail to take into account parrallel computing ( as well as the obvious quantum effects).

Not exactly.

He spent 400+ hours using super computers and created a time machine.

theMagicRabbit

May 16, 2013

0

#983

Ubik42 wrote:

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Next time I have questions about code I will write them in a more questioningly and less accusingly.

theMagicRabbit

May 16, 2013

0

#984

Ubik42 wrote:

theMagicRabbit wrote:

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?

Again, this criticism from non professionals that fail to take into account parrallel computing ( as well as the obvious quantum effects).

You're in Austin aren't you?

Ubik42

May 16, 2013

0

#985

Well, apology accepted then. I will be happy to offer you a free spot in one of my courses "Mathematical rigor, parrallel computing, quantum mechanics, and its effects on the veracity of public forum discourse" once it becomes available in your area.

BobCat01

May 16, 2013

0

#986

Argonaut13 wrote:

Ubik42 wrote:

I don't know, I thought so too, but the OP has begun to sway me to his side. Most people on the thread seem to think its a good idea.

It's not a good idea to think and be swayed without knowing, and it is not a good idea to assume the thinking of others, especially when the assumption is not only baseless, but also thoughtless.

Well it's not. It's not a good idea. Just loosing a rook can make you lose. It's just a troll thread and I believe this one Is going into the record books lol.

theMagicRabbit

May 16, 2013

0

#987

Ubik42 wrote:

Well, apology accepted then. I will be happy to offer you a free spot in one of my courses "Mathematical rigor, parrallel computing, quantum mechanics, and its effects on the veracity of public forum discourse" once it becomes available in your area.

This is a class at UT right?

Ubik42

May 16, 2013

0

#988

BobMcClure wrote:

Argonaut13 wrote:

Ubik42 wrote:

I don't know, I thought so too, but the OP has begun to sway me to his side. Most people on the thread seem to think its a good idea.

It's not a good idea to think and be swayed without knowing, and it is not a good idea to assume the thinking of others, especially when the assumption is not only baseless, but also thoughtless.

Well it's not. It's not a good idea. Just loosing a rook can make you lose. It's just a troll thread and I believe this one Is going into the record books lol.

Agreed. The trolls have gathered, and the rationalists are circling the wagons. All hope is not lost; for we have reason, justice, truth, parralel computing and quantum mechanics on our side.

theMagicRabbit

May 16, 2013

0

#989

Ubik42 wrote:

BobMcClure wrote:

Argonaut13 wrote:

Ubik42 wrote:

I don't know, I thought so too, but the OP has begun to sway me to his side. Most people on the thread seem to think its a good idea.

It's not a good idea to think and be swayed without knowing, and it is not a good idea to assume the thinking of others, especially when the assumption is not only baseless, but also thoughtless.

Well it's not. It's not a good idea. Just loosing a rook can make you lose. It's just a troll thread and I believe this one Is going into the record books lol.

Agreed. The trolls have gathered, and the rationalists are circling the wagons. All hope is not lost; for we have reason, justice, truth, parralel computing and quantum mechanics on our side.

But do you have cookies?

Ubik42

May 16, 2013

0

#990

theMagicRabbit wrote:

Ubik42 wrote:

Well, apology accepted then. I will be happy to offer you a free spot in one of my courses "Mathematical rigor, parrallel computing, quantum mechanics, and its effects on the veracity of public forum discourse" once it becomes available in your area.

This is a class at UT right?

Just walk into the headmaster's office, ask for the class, and tell 'em Ubik sent you. And dont forget the 42 part, that ticks them off.

netzach

May 16, 2013

0

#991

theMagicRabbit

May 17, 2013

0

#992

StrengthInPawns wrote:

A 400+ hour supercomputing experiment has verified that the only posts of substance in this thread were written by me.

I would be insulted.... if I had posted anything of substance

Ubik42

May 17, 2013

0

#993

The trolling we had to endure was epic.

Likhit1

May 17, 2013

0

#994

Opening i invinted.Peter's onslaught. White just wins a piece.

Likhit1

May 17, 2013

0

#995

FelixPlatypus wrote:

better name is like it or likhit.

lol

bsharpchess

May 17, 2013

0

#996

likhit1...in checkers, there is a version of it where you purposely try to lose. This opening you invented looks like the chess version of that. Since Black could have captured white's rook but chose not to.

Likhit1

May 17, 2013

0

#997

bsharpchess wrote:

likhit1...in checkers, there is a version of it where you purposely try to lose. This opening you invented looks like the chess version of that. Since Black could have captured white's rook but chose not to.

Capturing the rook gives white a clear advantage as black has given up the bishop pair and the rook on h3 wasnt doing much anyway.The bishop pair is far more important.

MrDamonSmith

May 17, 2013

0

#998

That's hilarious

bsharpchess

May 17, 2013

0

#999

silly me

Ubik42

May 17, 2013

0

#1000

So, you should be forced to resign when you are down in material? Is there even a valid argument against it?