Topic: CryptoNote technical discussion and Chess Challenge - page 42. (Read 96101 times)

Re1

Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play b6. Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.

Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
white to move


Game PGN:

b5: 1 vote (tifozi)
b6: 3 votes (boolberry, languagehasmeaning, newb4now)

I agree that b5 would be an easier way to attempt forcing a draw. That is precisely the reason why I chose b6. I hope we can keep the game interesting and avoid unnecessary simplifications. Based on some of the comments above I believe some of the Monero players feel the same way. The game may end in a draw but it won't be for a lack of effort from either side!

b5 leads to a quicker draw (exchange with no positional advantage or disadvantage, unless white gets experimental)

b5: 1 vote (tifozi)
b6: 2 votes (boolberry, languagehasmeaning)

b6: 2 votes (boolberry, languagehasmeaning)

I like b6 here. It both makes c5 more difficult for white and frees our rook from defending the pawn.

Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Monero has chosen to play b4. Now it is time for Team Boolberry to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.

Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
black to move


Game PGN:

I agree with smooth that the draw offer should be part of the move.

There is actually a FIDE rule that kind of supports this: "If a player makes a draw offer before making their move, the opponent can ask them to make their move before deciding."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_by_agreement

With this requirement we also avoid the situation where a team silent on an draw offer discussion can might have one team member vote for the leading move at 23:58UTC and add a draw offer.

I do think the game is likely to end in a draw but there are still some chances for both sides in my opinion. I vote to keep playing for now but will reconsider offering a draw if it becomes clear that neither side can make progress.

I am fine with this.

I think we can consider the draw offer as part of the move which means it wasn't a tie (yet):

29. b4 (ArticMine, XMRpromotions)
29. b4, offer draw (smooth)

I'm willing to change my vote to just b4 without the offer of a draw if needed.

I am voting against the draw offer. I find it premature in this kind of position.

29. b4 (ArticMine, XMRpromotions, smooth)

Draw offer
For: smooth
Against: ArticMine

If tie the draw offer stands since the for preceeded the against.

Yah 1/2-1/2 is likely here.

In hindsight 14 Qa5 (Black) and 27. Be6 (white) were the big mistakes.

b4 and offer draw

29.b4 (ArticMine, XMRpromotions)

29. b4

Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play Nd4. Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.

Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
white to move


Game PGN:

Nd4 (boolberry, languagehasmeaning, newb4now)

Your answer helped me understand. Thank you.

Okay so pattern recognition applies to life, e.g. as follows...


So chess is related to recognizing unfathomable possible patterns formed from a finite set of generative rules, whereas afaics life is choosing which patterns to focus on  generated from an unfathomable set of input entropy. In chess, the input entropy is the creativity of your opponent (within that finite set of generative rules and as you say more games introduces more entropy) whereas in life the relevant entropy is the scope of the Coasian temporal illusion (spacetime being one such illusion) you choose.

I believe I can eventually conceptually relate this into the theory of chaos:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13025343

Again looking for generalizing patterns.

I think the reason I am not exceptional at chess is my brain isn't optimized to compute (and especially store in memory many) long sequential patterns as rapidly as possible. Also storing a large quantity of intricate patterns. Whereas, my brain seems to be more optimized in performing reductionist logic (minimizing the number and/or entropy of patterns I need to store). I recognized this early in life where many people could memorize a long series of tones more reliably than I could. Yet my reading comprehension was higher than theirs typically. When I was 5 years old, my father was attempting to form the optimum design for the bed he was constructing for the rear of his VW bus and I was able to make some instant geometrical suggestions. There were photos of me in diapers and constructing things with shapes and even a plastic hammer. My mother says I was the only kid she knew that deconstructed all of toys instead of playing with them (and I retorted, "Mom that is playing with them").

In my subjects at school, I would always try to reduce the patterns I had to memorize by trying to form a generative theory. I applied this to math, history, etc.. So perhaps what I dislike about chess is the generative essence is the finite generative rules, but the entropy set is expansive instead of reductionist, i.e. I presume the chess masters have stored more entropy and have excellent finely grained long-term memory recall. For example, I can often remember that I know a precise vocabulary word for the context I am composing, but can't remember the word! I have to expend quite a bit of effort to recall from my long-term memory. Appears my brain might be doing the equivalent of Google's deprioritization of infrequently accessed memory stores (moving them to slower to recall storage).

Nd4 (boolberry, languagehasmeaning)