A thought on originality

[towforce]

You must have missed the previous discussion on this. To summarise, it's not proven, but the evidence suggests that chess nets are encoding a large amount of shallow knowledge (simple patterns), and that strong human players must have some deep knowledge (complex patterns) that chess nets don't.

Not even wrong.

Let me paraphrase: "I'm higher status than you are, so I can disrespect you whenever I like".

Boring.

For everyone else, here's a previous discussion about the nature of knowledge from February - link.

[maksimKorzh]

Did you play versus WukongJS?
https://maksimkorzh.github.io/wukongJS/wukong.html

I just did and here's the game:

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2021.05.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ovyron"]
[Black "WukongJS"]
[Result "*"]

1. Nc3 Nc6 {(b8c6 g1f3 g8f6 d2d4 d7d5 c1e3 c8e6) -0.38/7 1}
2. f4 {11} d5 {(d7d5 d2d4 c8e6 e2e3 g8f6 g1e2 d8d6 c1d2)
-0.63/8 1} 3. e4 {3} d4 {(d5d4 c3e2 g8f6 d2d3 c8g4 g1f3
g4f3 g2f3) -0.79/8 1} 4. Nce2 {2} e6 {(e7e6 g1f3 f8c5 d2d3
g8e7 c1d2 e8g8 f3e5) -0.87/8 1} 5. Ng3 {1} Nf6 {(g8f6 f1c4
h7h5 h2h4 c8d7 g1e2) -0.79/6 1} 6. a3 {6} e5 {(e6e5 f4e5
c6e5 d2d3 c8e6 g1e2) -1.02/6 1} 7. f5 {2} Bc5 {(f8c5 d1f3
e8g8 g1e2 c8d7) -1.33/5 0} 8. Bc4 {2} O-O {(e8g8 g1e2 d8d6
d2d3 c8d7 e1g1) -1/6 1} 9. d3 {1} Bd7 {(c8d7 g1f3 d8b8 e1g1
b7b5 c4d5 f6d5 e4d5) -0.85/6 1} 10. Nh5 {3} Na5 {(c6a5 c4a2
a5c6 h5g3 a7a5 g1e2) -1.41/6 1} 11. Ba2 {6} Nc6 {(a5c6 c1g5
c5e7 h5f6 e7f6 g5f6 d8f6 g1e2) -1.27/7 1} 12. Bg5 {2} Be7
{(c5e7 h5g3 h7h6 g5d2 e7c5 g1e2 d8e7) -1.23/7 1} 13. g4 {4}
Nxh5 {(f6h5 g5e7 d8e7 g4h5 e7h4 e1f1 a8e8 a2d5 h4f6)
-1.44/8 1} 14. Bxe7 {4} Qxe7 {(d8e7 g4h5 e7h4 e1f1 a7a5
a2c4 a8e8 d1f3 h4f6) -1.31/8 1} 15. gxh5 {2} Qh4+ {(e7h4
e1f1 a8e8 d1f3 h4f4 a2d5 f4e3) -1.2/6 1} 16. Kf1 {6} g6
{(g7g6 f5g6 h7g6 h5g6 h4f6 g1f3 f6g6) -1.08/6 1} 17. hxg6
{4} hxg6 {(h7g6 f5g6 d7e6 g6f7 f8f7 g1f3 e6a2 a1a2 a8f8
h1g1 g8h8 g1g3 h4h2) -0.49/9 1} 18. Nf3 {7} Qh3+ {(h4h3
f1f2 g6f5 d1f1 f5e4 h1g1 g8h8 f1h3 d7h3 d3e4) -1.59/7 1}
19. Kf2 {5} gxf5 {(g6f5 d1f1 h3h5 h1g1 g8h8 g1g5 h5h7 a2d5
f5e4 d3e4) -1.65/7 1} 20. Rg1+ {7} Kh8 {(g8h8 a2d5 f5f4
d1f1 h3h6 f1e2 h6f6 f2f1) -1.54/7 1} 21. Rg3 {5} Qh6 {(h3h6
a2d5 a8e8 d1d2 h6d6 f2g1 f5f4) -1.66/7 1} 22. Qf1 {5} fxe4
{(f5e4 d3e4 h6e3 f2g2 e3e4 a2b3 a8e8 f1d3 e4f4) -2.62/8 1}
23. dxe4 {6} Qe3+ {(h6e3 f2g2 e3e4 a2b3 a8e8 a1e1 e4h7)
-2.58/6 1} 24. Kg2 {4} Qxe4 {(e3e4 a2b3 f8e8 a1e1 e4f4 f3g5
f4d2) -2.48/7 1} 25. Qf2 {18} Rae8 {(a8e8 a1e1 e4f4 f3g5
f4f2 g2f2 e8e7) -2.49/6 1} 26. Rh3+ {3} Bxh3+ {(d7h3 g2h3
e4f5 h3g2 e5e4 f2h4 h8g7 h4g3 f5g6 f3g5 e8e5 h2h4) -4.41/7
1} 27. Kxh3 {2} Qf5+ {6} 28. Kg2 {9} e4 {(e5e4 f2h4 h8g7
f3d2 d4d3 a1f1 f5g6) -4.57/6 0} 29. Nh4 {3} Rg8+ {(f8g8
g2f1 f5b5 f1e1 b5b2 f2f6 g8g7 f6h6 h8g8 h6c1 b2c1 a1c1)
-5.7/7 1} 30. Kf1 {2} Qb5+ {(f5b5 f1e1 b5b2 f2f6 g8g7 a1d1
b2c3 e1f1 c3c2 d1a1 c6e5) -6.64/8 1} 31. Ke1 {5} Qxb2
{(b5b2 f2f6 g8g7 a1d1 b2c3 e1f1 c3c2 f6h6 h8g8 h6d2 c2d2
d1d2) -6.65/9 1} 32. Qf6+ {10} Rg7 {(g8g7 a1d1 b2c3 e1f1
c3c2 f6h6 h8g8 h6d2 c2d2 d1d2 d4d3) -6.98/8 0} 33. Qh6+ {3}
Kg8 {(h8g8 a2f7 g7f7 h6g5 f7g7 g5d5 g8f8 d5f5 g7f7 f5c5
c6e7 a1d1 b2c3 c5c3 d4c3 e1e2) -7.72/9 1} 34. Nf5 {10}
Qxa1+ {(b2a1 a2b1 a1b1 h6c1 b1c1 e1f2 c1g1 f2e2 g7g2) NaN/8
0} 35. Kd2 {3} Rg2# {(g7g2) NaN/2 0 # Mate} *[/pgn]

I've been able to defeat 2000 rated humans with attacks like that, so at the point WukongJS plays the perfect defense and finds the perfect attack it feels inhuman.

Wow!
That was tough!
Awesome game!
Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed it!

[chrisw]

You must have missed the previous discussion on this. To summarise, it's not proven, but the evidence suggests that chess nets are encoding a large amount of shallow knowledge (simple patterns), and that strong human players must have some deep knowledge (complex patterns) that chess nets don't.

Not even wrong.

Let me paraphrase: "I'm higher status than you are, so I can disrespect you whenever I like".

Boring.

Not even wrong refers to the quality of your prior argument. Boring, on the other hand, is a personal comment.

Again. Not even wrong. Premise cyclically rebounds on itself. You are actually talking about you. Have a nice day.

For everyone else, here's a previous discussion about the nature of knowledge from February - link.

[mvanthoor]

Not even wrong refers to the quality of your prior argument.

it means that an answer is of even lower quality than being wrong. That might be the case, but if you state something like that, you should at least also state WHY you label a post like that. If you don't, _your_ post is insulting.

[chrisw]

Not even wrong refers to the quality of your prior argument.

it means that an answer is of even lower quality than being wrong. That might be the case, but if you state something like that, you should at least also state WHY you label a post like that. If you don't, _your_ post is insulting.

Not even wrong.

Essence of a not even wrong is that it lacks even the attribute of engage-ability.
Thus, sentence one above doesn’t get the meaning right. Sentence two cyclically negates itself as a consequence. Sentence three doesn’t follow and is trolling. Why do I bother? Oh, yes, it’s a technical forum and erroneous technical statements are worth an appropriate challenge. I might respond to trolling just once. That’s it. Have a nice day.

[towforce]

Not even wrong refers to the quality of your prior argument. Boring, on the other hand, is a personal comment. Again. Not even wrong. Premise cyclically rebounds on itself. You are actually talking about you. Have a nice day.

Thank you - and apologies for saying "boring" - it was harsh. "Not even wrong" is a new expression for you, and thus represents personal growth: it's good that you've moved on from "Everything you know is wrong", and it was churlish of me to not give positive feedback.

Essence of a not even wrong is that it lacks even the attribute of engage-ability. Thus, sentence one above doesn’t get the meaning right. Sentence two cyclically negates itself as a consequence. Sentence three doesn’t follow and is trolling. Why do I bother? Oh, yes, it’s a technical forum and erroneous technical statements are worth an appropriate challenge. I might respond to trolling just once. That’s it. Have a nice day.

[chrisw]

Not even wrong refers to the quality of your prior argument. Boring, on the other hand, is a personal comment. Again. Not even wrong. Premise cyclically rebounds on itself. You are actually talking about you. Have a nice day.

"Not even wrong" is a new expression for you,

Wrong. Projecting back to yourself again.

[mvanthoor]

Oh, yes, it’s a technical forum and erroneous technical statements are worth an appropriate challenge.

Then either post a challenge, or an explanation of why something is wrong. People who just scream "Wrong! Wrong!" (even if something -is- wrong) are the worst teachers, because you can't learn anything from them. If you state that something is wrong, you should also explain what would be right.

It reminds me of a few politicians in the Netherlands:

Politician: "X is ***, and it should change, right now!"
Interviewer: "If you become prime minister, how would you then change or replace this current X?"
Politician: "..." <crickets> (or some sort of non-answer)