Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is Chess? What to think and for how long

alexcrompton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–126 of 126 posts

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#121

Post by seanhunter »

tepitoperrito wrote: post #110
gjm11 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

24x is more than 1 ply. Typical branching factor isn't so far from 24, and with alpha-beta the effective branching factor is more like sqrt(nominal branching factor), and I think modern engines are pretty good at pruning and extending the tree to make the scaling even better than that.

Is a "ply" a unit I'm not familiar with? Or does it just refer to a single layer. (Honestly not sure and curious)

A ply is half a move. Or to put it another way, one move is one ply by white and one ply by black. This is a term that is common to all sequential games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ply_(game_theory)

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#122

Post by fasterik »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #112
fasterik wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a word for that, it's called "obscurantism". Profound and true ideas can always be put in simple language. See Richard Feynman for one example. When someone uses a lot of complicated words and sentences to make a trivial point, that's a red flag for me.

Again, Deleuze would be offended if you thought any of his work has "profound and true ideas", for him (and Guattari), philosophy is simply not about "profound and true", he mocks endlessly all these people sick with "sign-ificance", every sign must mean some-thing. Also, accusing Deleuze of obscurantism is absolutely unfair and ignorant: Deleuze was truly one of the great teachers, those who can be pedagogical while…

Bach is a perfect example of the kind of thing that I'm talking about, and he's as far from postmodernism as I can imagine. His music is simple and pure. It isn't trying to impress anyone with technical virtuosity or sentimentality.

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#123

Post by encomiast »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #112
fasterik wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a word for that, it's called "obscurantism". Profound and true ideas can always be put in simple language. See Richard Feynman for one example. When someone uses a lot of complicated words and sentences to make a trivial point, that's a red flag for me.

Again, Deleuze would be offended if you thought any of his work has "profound and true ideas", for him (and Guattari), philosophy is simply not about "profound and true", he mocks endlessly all these people sick with "sign-ificance", every sign must mean some-thing. Also, accusing Deleuze of obscurantism is absolutely unfair and ignorant: Deleuze was truly one of the great teachers, those who can be pedagogical while…

I disagree that Bach is simple (I'm not sure what pure means in this context). Bach wrote contrapuntal music. This means you can have two, three, four, or five independent voices that sum up to a whole while maintaining their individual lines. He also included techniques like inversions and retrogrades where the same lines occur backwards or upside down. And he included a great deal of symbolism and numerology in the music. The music is also, at times, very harmonically modern for his time. His music is often wildly virtuosic too — try playing the Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue — it is a showpiece. "Simple" is just the wrong word.

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#125

Post by fasterik »

encomiast wrote: post #123
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, Deleuze would be offended if you thought any of his work has "profound and true ideas", for him (and Guattari), philosophy is simply not about "profound and true", he mocks endlessly all these people sick with "sign-ificance", every sign must mean some-thing. Also, accusing Deleuze of obscurantism is absolutely unfair and ignorant: Deleuze was truly one of the great teachers, those who can be pedagogical while…

I disagree that Bach is simple (I'm not sure what pure means in this context). Bach wrote contrapuntal music. This means you can have two, three, four, or five independent voices that sum up to a whole while maintaining their individual lines. He also included techniques like inversions and retrogrades where the same lines occur backwards or upside down. And he included a great deal of symbolism and numerology in the…

"Pure" in this context means "without any extraneous and unnecessary elements".

Google has a few different definitions for the word "simple". I don't mean it in the following ways:

- easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty

- composed of a single element; not compound

I do mean it in the following ways:

- used to emphasize the fundamental and straightforward nature of something

- plain, basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature, or design; without much decoration or ornamentation

- humble and unpretentious

Keep in mind my comment was in the context of a discussion about postmodernism. I think that when compared with some of the more complex postmodern music, even the most virtuosic Bach pieces are simple. A couple examples:

Finnissy - English Country Tunes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8VSRTl9tfw

Ligeti - Etudes for Piano - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHhZ2TzHlow

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#126

Post by aklemm »

jrumbut wrote: post #40
vlovich123 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No masters are sitting there counting TSAW TISP on their claws! I think this is misguided. A rigorous thought pattern is not a cage, it is an x ray. It shows our lion's bones. Strong players don't notice their thought patterns - you only notice bones when they're broken. The goal is not to think TSAW TISP in t, the goal is for good thought patterns to become so internalised that they form the skeleton our muscles h…

I think I just don't enjoy chess, so maybe all advice is wasted on me and I should give up on it for this lifetime but I appreciate your sentiment. Periodically I try to learn, and I know some openings out to a handful of moves and have done a bunch of end game puzzles and read about some concepts, but that middle area feels like a dark forest with no obvious path. I either make the blunder that sets me up to lose, w…

Anna Cramling videos are what will help you.
Post reply on HN