Opposite Color Bishop Endgames

[chrisw]

It is poor at tactics, which makes it a poor chess program, as tactics is an important part of chess. Is such elementary logic beyond you?

That you suffer from some kind of paranoia by now should be clear to everyone. There is no need to further stress that by telling us what other crazy ideas have invaded your mind...

To diagnose paranoia, you first need to establish the subject is perceiving some kind of threat-to-self. Or, if you like the wiki definition:

"Paranoia is an instinct or thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality.[1] Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. the American colloquial phrase, "Everyone is out to get me"). "

Since this topic is about opposite bishop endings and then your quite stupid comment "LC0 is a poor chess program" you could maybe explain to readers where there the fear, anxiety, feelings of persecution or belief in conspiracy involving threat to self, is manifesting.

Have you been drinking again, or is it your normal behaviour when one of your dumb comments get challenged to double down and escalate to wild insulting from the DSM-5 manual?

Back on topic: "LC0 is a poor chess program" is a very stupid thing to repeatedly say about probably the strongest chess in the world, perhaps bar one, perhaps. If you insist on repeating it, and insulting anyone who holds to the rational view that it is not only a dumb, but an objectively false comment, then you can expect some more analysis back again.

You used to be quite enthusiastic about neural net chess, once right? Quite a few posts from you about using different input to the net and improving, possible, versus the zero versions. Then you stopped with the enthusiasm, if I remember correct, and now you are making negative sneering type comments about this particular program. It's a program, it never did you any harm, and it's a kind of group effort, it's done really rather well, and practically proved what it set out to prove, so why the hostility to it? "A poor chess program"? When people who should know better make objectively nonsensical statements, back by spurious technical rationalisations, it's a dead cert the negativity is for reasons other than the spurious technical rationalisations, and lie someplace else. My intuition tells me what happened is you tried to emulate LC0, failed, and rather than accept the pain of that failure, turned on the nature of the LC0 program itself.

[hgm]

It's all in your mind, which apparently is running completely amok. Virtually nothing you say is remotely connected to reality, especially when you think you can read other people's mind.

Apparently it outrages you that LC0 is pretty poor at tactics, as far as chess engines go. And obviously you think it is a good idea to kill the messenger if you don't like the message.

[chrisw]

It's all in your mind, which apparently is running completely amok. Virtually nothing you say is remotely connected to reality, especially when you think you can read other people's mind.

Apparently it outrages you that LC0 is pretty poor at tactics, as far as chess engines go. And obviously you think it is a good idea to kill the messenger if you don't like the message.

Nothing LC0 can do outrages anyone, it’s just a program that plays chess. You may as well get outraged by a pocket calculator for being a pocket calculator

Well, not entirely, because for some strange reason, it does seem to get at you enough to make the false statement “LC0 is a poor chess program”. And then a bunch of spurious rationalizations in justification, followed by some wild insults coined out of DSM-5.

You’re an academic, aren’t you? Isn’t the idea to make truthful assertions backed by evidence and when wrong to correct? Well your original assertion was wrong, your “evidence” was a further bunch of unsubstantiated assertions and wrong again, and instead of correcting, you began a stream of wild personal attacks culled from DSM5 (kiddies edition). And now you complain you’re being killed. Seems astonishingly high stakes for a simple original wrong statement on a technical topic.

[Robert Pope]

It's all in your mind, which apparently is running completely amok. Virtually nothing you say is remotely connected to reality, especially when you think you can read other people's mind.

Apparently it outrages you that LC0 is pretty poor at tactics, as far as chess engines go. And obviously you think it is a good idea to kill the messenger if you don't like the message.

"LC0 is bad at chess" is a very different claim than "LC0 is not very good with tactics".

Otherwise, you might just as well say "Stockfish is bad at chess", since it doesn't play positional chess as well as LC0.

[hgm]

'Bad' is a strong word; I merely said 'poor'. Of course these are all relative notions, but the tactical abilities of LC0 seems to be equivalent to that of engines so far down the rating lists that justifies the use of this term. Being poor at tactics makes it a poor chess program. It isn't a necessary condition, but it is a sufficient condition.

And yes, Stockfish of course isn't a very good chess program either. I would have thought the position in the OP already made that abundantly clear.

[hgm]

Nothing LC0 can do outrages anyone, it’s just a program that plays chess. You may as well get outraged by a pocket calculator for being a pocket calculator

Well, then it is a mystery what makes you misbehave this way.

Perhaps it would help if you refrained from posting all these silly fantasies about what others feel, think, do etc. You are very poor at mind reading, and it only makes you look foolish. No one is interested in such fabricated nonsense in the first place. Of course we all understand that your obsessive compulsion to discredit people requires you to make up stuff to use as a reason, when nothing real is available, but that still doesn't make it wise to do it.

[chrisw]

Nothing LC0 can do outrages anyone, it’s just a program that plays chess. You may as well get outraged by a pocket calculator for being a pocket calculator

Well, then it is a mystery what makes you misbehave this way.

Wrote the person who wildly escalated from personal comments about "not understanding" , "troll", "fan-boy", "imagining conspiracies", "full of delusions", "unhealthy mental state", varied other insults too numerous to mention, and through to DSM-5 Mental Health Disorder diagnosis "paranoia".

Perhaps it would help if you refrained from posting all these silly fantasies about what others feel, think, do etc.

Wrote the amateur psychiatrist with the DSM-5 kiddies diagnosis manual. I've been quite calm, measured and rational throughout your streams of abuse, actually.

You are very poor at mind reading, and it only makes you look foolish.
No one is interested in such fabricated nonsense in the first place. Of course we all understand that your obsessive compulsion to discredit people requires you to make up stuff to use as a reason, when nothing real is available, but that still doesn't make it wise to do it.

Said the person who liberally sprinkles around "troll", "fan-boy", "imagining conspiracies", "full of delusions", "unhealthy mental state", varied other insults too numerous to mention, DSM-5 Mental Health Disorder diagnosis "paranoia".

Let's get back to planet Earth, shall we? You wrote "LC0 is a poor chess program". That's an unsustainable assertion that falls over on all examination. End of story, should have been.

[hgm]

There shouldn't even have been a story.

LC0 is poor at tactics. So it is a poor chess program. PERIOD.

The initial statement was never withspoken. To the point would have been if you would have responded "Not at all, LC0 is brilliant at tactics. It is on par with the best engines in solving tactical positions". Instead the insane bla-bla started... But youy know what they say: "if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". You sure diplayed a good attempt at that, here.

[Dann Corbit]

LC0 is poor at tactics. So it is a poor chess program. PERIOD.

?
It seems to be the second strongest program in the world on good hardware.
If it is poor in tactics, perhaps it is a positional genius.
If it is a positional genius, then perhaps it is not a poor chess program.

An engine can win like Mikhail Tal, or it can win like Mikhail Botvinnik. Either way, it wins a lot.

[hgm]

That just means it has a high Elo. Like I pointed out high Elo and 'good at chess' are entirely different things.

Elo is measured on a tiny and possibly completely unrepresentative subset of all chess positions that are likely to occur in games, like a human IQ test is in general not representative for all problems one might encounter in daily life. And then there also remains the problem of it being just an average.