🚀 go-pugleaf

Well stated, JC!

(I normally wouldn't reply just to say that, but, I'd hate to see AP's
crap spread from sci.math and sci.physics)

John

J C wrote:
> 
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You claim, outrageously to have conceived an OS for chess, and
> yet your writings reveal an elementary misconception about
> the relevant game theory. Suppose an OS existed in chess for white.
> Then the OS would provide an opening move (e4 say). By
> definition, all responses by black are equally bad: the OS
> provides a response for white *no matter what black does*. If
> you want to visualise an OS, it is as a subtree of the complete
> game tree which contains all successors at odd levels, and a
> unique successor at even levels. Again and again it is clear
> from your "arguments" that you perceive an OS as a single branch
> of the game tree. This is a simple, fundamental error on
> your part, and gives the lie (not that it's needed) to your
> preposterous claims.
> 
> If it is your intention to gull people into believing that
> there is the remotest merit or truth in your writings, then I
> suggest that you try a lot harder.
> 
> JC