Originally posted by z00tI will have to agree with ThudanBlunder here. He specifically used "God" as a concept for a particular hypothetical situation. Not some specific God that you believe in.
What are you doing in RHP? Zero games played and you have this insult of a post to show off. The rules should be ammended so that cowboys such as yourself are here for chess ie no posts until you have 20 games or something.
God is just a word that can represent some all powerful entity. You are the one that is giving it a specific definition and getting offended.
Originally posted by z00tNo they shouldn't. RHP, by having forums related to spirituality, political debates, and puzzles, etc., is clearly catering to interests outside of Chess, the Game.
The rules should be ammended so that cowboys such as yourself are here for chess ie no posts until you have 20 games or something.
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderI think I took "God" to mean as you intended. My understanding is that such a hypothetical player has the ability to do near infinite calculations necessary to always preserve a forced win or maintain a forced draw from any possible possition.
I wish you would forget about God. (I wish now that I had used a different thread title.) Don't you know there are people around here who believe that He speaks only to them and that the very idea of Him failing to win quickly with Black is an unforgivable blasphemy?
Whether this being would also do necessary obfuscation to make it harder for Kasparov to preserve a draw is another question. But since even grand-masters are capable of obfuscation, it seems that a God like calculation machine would be able to choose more difficult paths too.
I am not talking about "peering into the soul" of the opponent, just your basic obfuscation.
Since I proposed that one might easily attain a draw against God in tic-tac-toe, then obviously I don't have a hang-up discussing the hypothetical opportunity for Kasparov to play the God-like creature you are driving at.
It is just my opinion, without accusing the alternative of being blasphemy, that no human could draw the God-like creature you proposed in chess.
7 edits
Originally posted by techsouthNear infinite? Hmm...
I think I took "God" to mean as you intended. My understanding is that such a hypothetical player has the ability to do near infinite calculations necessary to always preserve a forced win or maintain a forced draw from any possible possition.
Whether this being would also do necessary obfuscation to make it harder for Kasparov to preserve a draw is an e of being blasphemy, that no human could draw the God-like creature you proposed in chess.
Tic-tac-toe is known to be a draw with best play.
Anyway, let's just use the idea of an optimal strategy as defined in game theory. Such a strategy does not consider 'obfuscation', only the objectively best move. Do you think it would it be possible to ever draw playing CC (with access to databases, etc.) rather than OTB?
By the way, you carelessly used the word 'God' four times in your last post. And athough you used it only once in the same paragraph as the word 'chess', this apparently innocuous practice is now known to be completely unacceptable to the rising number of hypocritical religious fascists who pervade this site masquerading as poor chessplayers. Don't be banned. Be careful. 😉
Originally posted by exigentskyGood grief! I thought I'd heard it all, but this thread proves me wrong! People actually wondering about God's chess rating. How insane do you get? How meaningless? Just enjoy the game. No one in this thread will ever be half the player Kasparov is. And, I really don't concern myself with how good he is. He lives in a mansion with a beautiful wife, and gets applauded every time he enters a room. But, what do I get? Nothing but the privilege of reading threads trying to ascertain just how close to perfect Kasparov is.
Surely God's ELO would make the entire question of black and white pointless. Someone that good will win no matter the color. :p
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemLook at his game history and tell me how many games he has completed since he joined. Perhaps he has another account for playing and this one is for spamming the forums? How do you explain the 0 games?
No they shouldn't. RHP, by having forums related to spirituality, political debates, and puzzles, etc., is clearly catering to interests outside of Chess, the Game.
Originally posted by z00tHe's not spamming the forums.
Look at his game history and tell me how many games he has completed since he joined. Perhaps he has another account for playing and this one is for spamming the forums? How do you explain the 0 games?
Furthermore, there is (and rightly so) no requirement to play chess in order to participate in the forums. Having more forum participation is a good thing, in general.
As the forums page (http://www.timeforchess.com/board/index.php) points out:
"The forums are the core of the 'Time For Chess' community."
I think he's stepped on your toes and you're out to remove him, without regard for the negative effect your proposals would have on others who wish to participate in the site.
2 edits
Originally posted by z00tNo explanation is needed. (Just as no explanation is needed for your 0 recs!) But I suppose you have vays of making me explain, don't you? I certainly do not come here to push wood with the likes of you, a hypocrite who professes religious sensitivity and then quickly switches to the last resort of the exhausted mind: verbal abuse. But you are your own punishment, so I don't really mind.
Look at his game history and tell me how many games he has completed since he joined. Perhaps he has another account for playing and this one is for spamming the forums? How do you explain the 0 games?
"The forums are the core of the 'Time For Chess' community. Feel free to just read, but please consider posting a comment."
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemActually if you search for "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God" you will see his views have been "catered for". Nothing new there.
He's not spamming the forums....
I think he's stepped on your toes and you're out to remove him, without regard for the negative effect your proposals would have on others who wish to participate in the site.
Originally posted by z00tYou have badly misread the intent of this thread. It was not intended as a spiritual discussion; you're the one who has constantly been trying to steer it there, even though nobody else wants to play along.
Actually if you search for "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God" you will see his views have been "catered for". Nothing new there.
Originally posted by z00twho cares ... read the original question ... it is a very interesting idea, which this thread has struggled to maintain.
Look at his game history and tell me how many games he has completed since he joined. Perhaps he has another account for playing and this one is for spamming the forums? How do you explain the 0 games?
as far as i see (with only skim reading the thread) there seems to be only one very accurate response, i paste it again here because it seems so sensible:
by Gorgar "I think he (kasparov) would never draw against perfect play.Why do people always think the masters of their era are close to perfect mastery of the game?Have you forgotten people allready thought this of Morphy,Steinitz,Capablanca etc... when it always turned out there was still a lot left to be discovered?Why would it be any different at the present day?"
i believe the question has a good answer here ... god would have complete analysis of kasparov's games and all the games that k has ever seen, or his team has ever looked at, and see many consistent mistakes both in k's openings, middlegames and endgames ... these weaknesses would leave k open to loss in EVERY game.
Originally posted by flexmoreI am not replying to any more posts that contain the god word.
i believe the question has a good answer here ... god would have complete analysis of kasparov's games and all the games that k has ever seen, or his team has ever looked at, and see many consistent mistakes both in k's openings, middlegames and endgames ... these weaknesses would leave k open to loss in EVERY game.