how do you untilt in chess?
OK here goes ... Ask me Anything
Sort:
Aug 20, 2020
0
#243
rytsar25507 wrote:
how do you untilt in chess?
I am still trying to work that out too 
do you know python? like: print('I know python')
Aug 20, 2020
0
#245
Train29 wrote:
do you know python? like: print('I know python')
No but my son does
Aug 20, 2020
0
#246
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:
For an example, in that one question:
x・10 = 0
x = 17・(((14・(-11))+150)+2²)
Find x
All you need, is to see if something multipled makes zero, it can only be, because it's multiplied by zero. Then, you can ignore the second, complicated line, since you've got the answer already. The second line is only here to impress you and make you feel lost: it's a flare, a decoy.
there is no value for x that satisfies both equations.
rytsar25507 wrote:
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:
For an example, in that one question:
x・10 = 0
x = 17・(((14・(-11))+150)+2²)
Find x
All you need, is to see if something multipled makes zero, it can only be, because it's multiplied by zero. Then, you can ignore the second, complicated line, since you've got the answer already. The second line is only here to impress you and make you feel lost: it's a flare, a decoy.
there is no value for x that satisfies both equations.
I probably wrote something wrong but it's meant to fit their explanations
I mean, is JESUS,who wipe away your bitter tears?
Aug 20, 2020
0
#249
leons2000 wrote:
I mean, is JESUS,who wipe away your bitter tears?
Yes
It's a tough job answering all these broad ranging questions. U might not have figured they could be so varied.
Aug 20, 2020
0
#251
Damonevic-Smithlov wrote:
It's a tough job answering all these broad ranging questions. U might not have figured they could be so varied.
I admit that some of them have made me think but I was hoping for the broadness of them 
Did u like the light speed one? I figured that would be way out there.
this geting boring
Aug 20, 2020
0
#254
It is certainly a question that made me think even if I didn't know the answer
Aug 20, 2020
0
#256
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:
Train29 a écrit :
this geting boring
My advice: don't buy this newspaper anymore.
IKR
Aug 20, 2020
0
#257
Ripley_Osbourne wrote:
rytsar25507 a écrit :
there is no value for x that satisfies both equations.
It matters not. The first is so very simple, and x can only be zero. What ever happens in the second equation can be a mistake, a typo, whatever, it matters not, we've find out already the only possible correct answer.
that makes absolutely no sense.
the same case can be made for -1700, or whatever the answer to the second equation is.
Aug 20, 2020
0
#258
The second equation is a basic addition/multiplication with a bunch of brackets thrown it to make it look complicated. the riddle is clearly flawed if the answer is x = 0.
i don't understand what the connection is to the chess puzzle and the math thing, but on the topic of the chess puzzle, and how the only checkmate is O-O, so it must be the answer, here's a pretty cool puzzle I came across in a video:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/nice-puzzle-26
White to mate in 1.
Aug 20, 2020
0
#259
No offense taken, although im not really a fan of people saying "no offense" - criticism is at the core of self-improvement and learning, there's no point in sugar-coating it. Regardless, in the first example (math question), it's impossible: no value for x can satisfy both equations, no matter how hard you try. naturally, since both equations are given, x should be able to satisfy both equations, and since it cannot, the problem has no solution.
for the second example, however (chess puzzle), it's common sense - working backwards. there appears to be no solution, but if we make some assumptions, there is a logical solution.
going back to the first example, again, i don't see the connection. we aren't working backwards, there is no logical solutions, and the only assumption to be made is that the creator of the so-called riddle mixed something up, so there is no solution.
let me give you an analogy to explain.
it's like me saying this:
x + 1 = 2
(x(20173) + 218301283^921731!) = 39
and saying
"no body would spend the time to solve the second problem, so x =1". If this were the case, math tests would be so much less time consuming.
This would be like the first question.
For the second, chess-related, example, it would be like one of those detective problems - where you are given clues, have to work backwards, and make assumptions. assumptions which, mind you, abide by the clues you were given.
i think that's the difference. the assumption you make in the first example is that the value of 0 for x satisfies the first equation, so it must satisfy the second as well. that makes no sense. you are given the complete information ("clues" if we are to draw parallels with the detective example) to verify your answer, but you aren't. that's not logic, thats laziness.
for the second one (detective one), you are making assumptions BASED ON the clues you are given, and only that, to come to a logical conclusion. in the math question, you are making assumptions, which don't fully abide by the "clues" (second equation), and instead make assumptions because the solver is too lazy to solve the second equation.
you aren't using the complete information at your disposal to solve the problem.
that's like me saying, "the earth is shaped like swiss cheese because there are holes in the ground", despite a plethora of evidence indicating otherwise. The other evidence is synonymous with the "second equation" in this analogy.
at least that's my take on what you're saying - feel free to elaborate on what you mean, because i don't see it. also, im 13, so you might have to explain it more simply, because clearly there's some deep idea i don't see.
You have lost me