Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-08 06:37:00

Here are a Load of WACKO'S that Predict when they Think the World/Earth will End which might interest some People.

http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

GiB.

bobbym · 2011-01-08 06:48:28

groups heavenly allies will flood the United States very soon, whisking the ODF faithful safely away from their fenced-off Texas compound.

Well, that is the third group that believes that aliens are going to whisk them away to safety in 1 / 2 mile wide craft. They do not live in Nevada, do they?

I remember the 5/5/2000 idiot that they gave television time to on a discovery documentary. I ran the calculations to determine the planetary alignments he spoke of. You know what? There was no alignments.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-09 01:50:29

Just to Clear up the matter concerning...Computers and Calculation.

Deep Blue v Garry Kasparov - Game 2 Position 36 White To Move -1997 Re-Match.

Garry said he could not understand how a Computer could play such a move as Deep Blue's BC2 E4
in the above Position.

The truth of the matter is that Garry never knew how Advanced Deep Blue was! Computers with enough Knowledge can Replicate and even Improve on Human Knowledge ...as is what is now happening in many areas such as Science,Mathematics,Chemistry..Etc. as well as Chess.

To Prove a Point!...

The Best Chess Engine as of January 2011 is the Free UCI Engine ( Houdini 1.5 ) Programmed by Robert Houdart,which is even more Powerful than the famous ( Rybka 4 ) Programmed by Vasik Rajlich,which is Commercial Software now produced by Chess Base, and regarded as the Strongest Engine?.

In the above Position Houdini 1.5 Plays BC2 E4 (Score +54) for White! at different time levels below 60 Seconds! Well within the Match time allowed...and also Plays the Strong QF2 B6 (Score + 40) for White! Both moves are Winning.

So there we have it Garry what you never understood at the Time? Can now be proved to you...But you are and will always be Regarded as One of the Strongest Human Chess Players in History! even though I personally believe if Paul Morphy could have lived longer...instead of the his Tragic Death! he would have been the Strongest Player Ever!!

GiB.

bobbym · 2011-01-09 04:09:13

I have not seen Houdini 1.5 in action yet. Rybka 4 is the current world computer champ.

Garry is not the greatest player that ever lived. Modern Grandmasters are too filled with pride to play in the correct style ( anti computer chess ). When Garry half tried it he split his latest match. I do not know how todays chess computers would do against Capablanca or Petrosian? Those names probably mean nothing to you but they played in a style where they did not beat themselves. Engines rarely can play any sort of strategical chess. They can exploit tactical errors. Errors of calculation also unknown to todays players.

GeniusIsBack wrote:

Computers with enough Knowledge can Replicate and even Improve on Human Knowledge ...as is what is now happening in many areas such as Science,Mathematics,Chemistry..Etc. as well as Chess.

Computers assist in those fields. Since a computer has the cognitive power of a grasshopper or an amoeba depending on whom you ask that statement is nothing more than a commercial.

Computers beat humans by playing ugly, uninspired chess. They do not teach us anything, no one can copy their style, no one wants to.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-09 05:58:23

comment removed - insulting

(1) Rybka 4 is the current world computer champ.

GiB.
Because in the last World Computer Championships and all the previous Championships... Rybka 4 Used the Most Powerful Hardware Based on Intel Cluster 128 CPUs Highly Tuned by Experts! (Money Talks!)
A Number of the other Participants were only using Basic 1 & 2 CPUs set-ups!
Plus Other Stronger or Equal Programs where not allowed to Participate?

(2) Garry is not the greatest player that ever lived.

GiB.
Raymond keene & Nathan Divinsky:In contrast to Elo and Sonas's systems,strength of players active in different eras,and so determine the strongest player of all time.
Considering games played between sixty-four of the strongest players in history,they come up with the following top ten.

Garry Kasparov, 3096
Anatoly Karpov, 2876
Bobby Fischer, 2690
Mikhail Botvinnik, 2616
José Raúl Capablanca, 2552
Emanuel Lasker, 2550
Viktor Korchnoi, 2535
Boris Spassky, 2480
Vasily Smyslov, 2413
Tigran Petrosian, 2363

(3) Capablanca or Petrosian? Those names probably mean nothing to you

GiB.
Just so you Know who you are Talking to...I have been Playing Competitive Chess and Interested In Chess/Computers/Programming for more than 30+ years Plus have immense Knowledge of all the Great Chess Players their different styles of play and their Historical Biographys.

(4) Computers assist in those fields. Since a computer has the cognitive power of a grasshopper or an amoeba.

GiB.
Grasshopper's must be very Intelligent and Advanced then...Because A.I Computer software does not just "assist in those fields" it has as I stated Improved on Human Knowledge!
Just look it up! you will find How such Programs have found on there own...as it were..(after being given the Basic Rules much like a Chess Problem)...New Ways Methods of solving problems to such an extent That some Human Experts have been replaced! One example a program for finding Rare Minerals Etc Replaced it's Creator!!

(5) Computers beat humans by playing ugly, uninspired chess.

GiB.
when a chess Computer announces Mate in 20 + Moves There is Beauty in it's findings trust me! especially because it is 100% Correct no matter what the Human or Computer tries to do against it!
Below are some area's of Chess solved by the Computer on it's own! again (after being given the Basic Rules)
Solved by retrograde computer analysis for all three- to six-piece, and some seven-piece endgames, counting the two kings as pieces. It is solved for all 33 and 42 endgames with and without pawns, where 5-1 endgames are assumed to be won with some trivial exceptions.

Last edited by GeniusIsBack (2011-01-09 06:01:19)

LQ · 2011-01-09 06:09:51

I'm glad you're fashinated by the intensity of the chess. Farmer Joe to judgement day as they also oftenly say..

bobbym · 2011-01-09 06:10:41

Have you tried Rybka 4 versus Houdini 1.5 on your machine? I said I have not yet. I just stated a fact, Rybka is champ! Rybka has been the champ for a number of years so it rates the best hardware. As I understand it is a little early to be saying who is best as they have played some blitz games and a small number at that.

Just so you Know who you are Talking to...I have been Playing Competative Chess and Interested In Chess/Computers/Programming for more than 30+ years Plus have immense Knowledge of all the Great Chess Players their different styles of play and their Historical Biographys.

Then I have you topped, young fellow. Nice to know ya, I love talking to young people. You only go back to the 80's you did not actually see the players of the 50's and 60's.

That rating list is a joke. If you think Petrosian is a 2363 rated player than that is the joke of the day. Garry is a modern day joke. A product of an environment that cheats. A product of an environment that does not have any really good players. A product of bloated ratings, lots of hype and television. Even Bobby Fischer would have wiped the floor with Garry. Yes, Paul Morphy would take him apart.

Expert systems assist humans. Those are very specific fields. I suggest you read Hubert Dreyfus, his stuff still holds.

when a chess Computer announces Mate in 20 + Moves There is Beauty in it's findings trust me!

Why should I trust you, that is nothing but pure tactics. Just watch them lumber along in locked up positions. My God, 1800 rated players play better positional chess than they do.

Tablebases do not imply intelligence or artistry. Just means some dumb program has stored all the positions for that particular endgame on my poor hard drive. Now the math that figured that out that was impressive.

I'm glad you're fashinated by the intensity of the chess. Farmer Joe to judgement day as they also oftenly say..

Yes, LQ is right we are getting off topic.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-09 07:32:36

comment removed - insulting

(6) I just stated a fact, Rybka is champ!

GiB. Your actual Statement was "Rybka 4 is the current world computer champ" Don't forget yourself with your OLD mind?
And again The Best Chess Engine as of January 2011 is the Free UCI Engine ( Houdini 1.5 ) Programmed by Robert Houdart.

(7) Then I have you topped. young fellow. You only go back to the 80's you did not actually see the players of the 50's and 60's.

GiB. The time Period is not what decides the Difference in Knowledge and Inteligence...it was your Quote: "Capablanca or Petrosian? Those names probably mean nothing to you" that made me know you mind is Singular to what you say...Try listening for Once in your life...OLD! Fellow..Anyone with an Ounce of Intelligence would have picked up on the facts that because I mentioned...Deep Blue,Garry Kasparov,Houdini 1.5,Robert Houdart,Rybka 4,Vasik Rajlich,Paul Morphy,I might have a bit of an idea about Chess!
After your first weak replies I was sure you was an upstart 18 year old/young? Student...you even said yourself as a self commitment to my (Looks like a Contradiction to...) Good point!
How many times do you have to be Proved wrong! before you Admit to yourself you are up against a far more Intelligent...Higher...Being.

(8) That rating list is a joke. If you think Petrosian is a 2363 rated player

GiB. Again Try listening for Once in your life...Raymond keene & Nathan Divinsky:In contrast to Elo and Sonas's systems.

(9)Why should I trust you, that is nothing but pure tactics

GiB. But Unfortunately for Weak Tactical Players like yourself The Truth! and the End of the Game for you (Check Mate!).

(10) Tablebases do not imply intelligence or artistry... Now the math that figured that out that was impressive.

GiB. I would love to see you Calculate it for just any 3 Piece Positions! Now that would be a Double joke Of The Day!!

bobbym · 2011-01-09 07:50:27

GeniusIsBack wrote:

How many times do you have to be Proved wrong! before you Admit to yourself you are up against a far more Intelligent...Higher...Being.

Heck a rather slow monkey is smarter than I am. But unfortunately in this case that fact does not imply that you are right. In fact you are wrong, very wrong.

About that stuff of you being a higher being well sorry, I am just not buying it. Nothing you have said in this thread has convinced me. Perhaps your higher statements are yet to come. I will wait for you to post them.

Rybka won the last world championship in 2010. Until the next one is it not the reigning champ? I ask you again did you test Rybka vs Houdini at long time intervals 60+ min for at least 100 games? Using the same book. I have not done that yet. If you have not then you basing your opinion on a small sample. This is poor judgement on your part.

And that list no matter who wrote it, is still a joke, why quote it. You know it is the worst kind of tripe.

GiB. But Unfortunately for Weak Tactical Players like yourself The Truth! and the End of the Game for you (Check Mate!).

I usually resigned way before that. You have never seen any of my games. I mean I know who you are so is this an example of your higher beingness?

Solved by retrograde computer analysis for all three- to six-piece, and some seven-piece endgames, counting the two kings as pieces. It is solved for all 33 and 42 endgames with and without pawns, where 5-1 endgames are assumed to be won with some trivial exceptions.

Means nothing but that a couple of loops can exhaust a small number. No intelligence, no beauty, no artistry and no imagination except by the people who programmed it.

GiB. I would love to see you Calculate it for just any 3 Piece Positions! Now that would be a Double joke Of The Day!!

Have you done it? By hand? Why?

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-09 08:38:22

comment removed - insulting, flaming.

(11) Heck a rather slow monkey is smarter than I am.

GiB. How many times do you have to be Proved wrong! before you Admit to yourself you are up against a far more Intelligent...Higher...Being.
Well I did not think you would start Self Confession this early in the Debate!...Apologies all-round!

(12) I ask you again did you test Rybka vs Houdini at long time intervals 60+ min for at least 100 games? Using the same book.

GiB. Ok! Now for your First Lesson time OLD fellow!...First of all when you Test Chess Engines...You Don't use Opening Books..You Don't use Endgame Data Base..You Don't test them at One Time Interval,Etc.
The reasons are that you want the Chess Engines only using it's Built in Algorithms for solving the Chess Positions as the Game progresses,i.e. no outside Help!
This way we get the True Strength of the Fixed Engine.

(13) And that list no matter who wrote it is still a joke, why quote it. You know it is the worst kind of tripe.

GiB. The list...Is Based on Very Strong Knowledge By Experts who Know far more about Chess Expertise than Either of us...and Probably the Total of all Chess Players on this Site...and many others!
If you call that Tripe then Now we Have Intelligent "Grasshopper's" and "Tripe" to add to the list!

(14) I rarely got mated, I usually resigned way before that.

GiB. More Self Confessions this early in the Debate! I am starting to be a bit impressed by you!? But really shows How weak a Chess Player you are! The Secret to improving at Chess is to Play on Until the Very End! Can you imagine a Chess Program seeing that it will Lose in the Next 20 Moves and resign!? I don't Think so.

(15) Means nothing but that a couple of loops can exhaust a small number. No intelligence, no beauty, no artistry and no imagination except by the people who programmed.

GiB. This reminds me of some Uneducated Person Trying to Find a Needle in a Hay Stack... and Giving up after Hours of Useless Time! When if he had a Magnet could have found the Needle in no Time!
Again Just sit Back Watch...Learn the from the intelligence,beauty, artistry,imagination,of the Chess Program! then Maybe? just Maybe? One Day you will Beat it!

bobbym · 2011-01-09 08:54:03

But what has any of that got to do with your alleged super beingness or this thread. It does not imply that you are right as a matter of fact you are wrong again.

GiB. Ok! Now for your First Lesson time OLD fellow!...First of all when you Test Chess Engines...You Don't use Opening Books..You Don't use Endgame Data Base..You Don't test them at One Time Interval,Etc.
The reasons are that you want the Chess Engines only using it's Built in Algorithms for solving the Chess Positions as the Game progresses,i.e. no outside Help!
This way we get the True Strength of the Fixed Engine.

That is not true that is not the only way to test an engine. And the point is which you keep avoiding is that you have not done it! You have done no testing. You have no information to offer. Before you or anyone else can say one engine is stronger than another they must play a set match, like humans. Do you know what a set match is? Performance ratings mean little. The fact is Rybka has the title till May 2011. It also holds this title 30th Dutch Computer Chess Championship till April 12. I am sorry but that is the way it is.

The list...Is Based on Very Strong Knowledge By Experts who Know far more about Chess Expertise than Either of us...

Who says that? I hope that is your opinion and you are passing that around as a fact.

It is weak because it has Petrosian around 330 points below his true rating it has Emanuel Lasker ( someone before your time ) at about 150 below his.

But really shows How weak a Chess Player you are! The Secret to improving at Chess is to Play on Until the Very End! Can you imagine a Chess Program seeing that it will Lose in the Next 20 Moves and resign!? I don't Think so.

I am sorry that is also not correct. You have obviously never played any serious chess. You do not need to hang on till you are mated. No grandmaster, master or club player would do that.

Again Just sit Back Watch...Learn the from the intelligence,beauty, artistry,imagination,of the Chess Program! then Maybe? just Maybe? One Day you will Beat it!

You are saying that watching a chess engine go 16 ply is improving your game? You will never calculate like they do, you are wasting your time. Concentrate on judgement. I have beaten and drawn engines many times, how about you?

GiB. This reminds me of some Uneducated Person

I do not know why you think you are uneducated. You can always get more schooling. I do not hold it against someone because they think they are uneducated. I am enjoying your conversation anyway.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-09 09:31:03

comment removed - insulting

(16) It may be the truth but what has that got to do with you or this thread. It does not imply that you are right as a matter of fact you are wrong again.

GiB.This is Now I Said That! you Said That!

(17) That is not true that is not how test an engine.

GiB.Ok for Once you put forward How you would Test Engines! and then be corrected by many other people that Know the same as me!

(18) It is weak because it has Petrosian around 330 points below his true rating it has Emanuel Lasker ( someone before your time ) at about 150 below his.

GiB.Who's true ratings! I am sure the ratings list you Base that on are Way out of Date! Computers have Corrected many Areas in Chess! including the Old Ratings lists.

(19) I am sorry that is also not correct. You have obviously never played any serious chess in your life. You do not need to hang on till you are mated.

GiB.In Competitive Serious Chess you still Play on hoping your opponent will make a mistake! but obviously not in King against king type of Positions? Many of the Worlds top Players in History have turned Games around to their Advantage!
As far as Learning goes you must see all of the Game to really get a feeling for it! even simple looking Pawn and a Few Pieces can be More Complex than they Look!

(20) You are saying that watching a chess engine go 16 ply is improving your game? You will never calculate like they do

GiB.Big Mistake!! Seeing how they Reach a Conclusion...is all part of Learning.

(21) I have beaten and drawn engines many times, I suspect you never have.

GiB.Post One of your Games on this Site...And I will tell you if it is Genuine! Don't tell me if you Played White or Black it could even be a Game where you Lose! which I am Sure most are!.

Logging Off Now.

bobbym · 2011-01-09 09:50:13

GiB.This is Now I Said That! you Said That!

Well, I am not hoping to change your mind, that is clearly impossible. I am just correcting errors in your statements.

GiB.Ok for Once you put forward How you would Test Engines! and then be corrected by many other people that Know the same as me!

The fact that they know you and you them is irrelevant. The fact that they know the same as you means to me they are wrong. Tell me who the people are, I might know them.

Again I ask you to produce any evidence of your original assertion that Houdini is superior to Rybka?! Right now Rybka has all the titles! All the other one has is a performance rating. When they play a set match, I asked you if you know what that is, then we can say one is probably stronger than the other.

Computers have Corrected many Areas in Chess! including the Old Ratings lists.

Computers do not correct ratings. Sorry, that is incorrect. That rating list is trendy nonsense to promote certain players. A 700 point rating difference between Petrosian and Garry would mean statistically that Garry should win every encounter between them. Fact is they had an even score over there lifetimes and that was when Tigran was way over the hill.

In Competitive Serious Chess you still Play on hoping your opponent will make a mistake!

Against players that are better than a beginner you resign and conserve energy for the next game. You do not play on a piece down against Bobby Fischer or any other decent player hoping he will make a mistake. I do not know where you got that impression from.

Big Mistake!! Seeing how they Reach a Conclusion...is all part of Learning.

Nope! Studying books and Grandmaster games is how you learn. Yes, even Garry's games can teach you something. Again I do not know why you think watching Fritz is improving your game.

GiB.Post One of your Games on this Site...And I will tell you if it is Genuine! Don't tell me if you Played White or Black it could even be a Game where you Lose! which I am Sure most are!.

That is easy, computers play so artificially in so many positions even you could tell which is which. I believe I did post a game to you once. It was against an engine that is rated around 2550 , a decent grandmaster. I lasted in this one to move 78 when I made a blunder in a drawn position. Imagine achieving a drawn position when I am over 600 points lower rated! Your list has the great Emanuel Lasker at 2550 too. I know I would not have lasted till move 78 against him!

Since I asked you how you did and you did not answer may I assume you have never beaten them or drawn them. So why listen to you?

Logging off! What the heck is that? We are not done! There is more to discuss...

LQ · 2011-01-09 11:01:41

Some thinks that insults are intelligent, But since they're not constructive, I guess those people need aid in how to behave, ain't that right GiB?

Last edited by LQ (2011-01-09 11:02:16)

bobbym · 2011-01-09 11:32:34

Hi LQ;

Sorry it is my fault. I am critical today. Thanks for noticing and helping.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-09 20:59:30

comment removed - insulting

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-09 22:02:39

comment removed - insulting

MarvinRayBurns · 2011-01-10 02:38:05

Wolfram Aplha has an answer to when the world will end; see http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=when+will+the+world+end%3F&t=ietb01 .
It does use one assumption, however.

Last edited by MarvinRayBurns (2011-01-10 02:43:18)

MarvinRayBurns · 2011-01-10 03:16:45

GeniusIsBack mentioned the pandemonium that would accompany a known end of the world date. With the weapons that people have, the resulting bedlam could hasten the epoch. Then the world would end before that date. Hmm?

Last edited by MarvinRayBurns (2011-01-10 06:53:24)

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-10 05:29:34

Hi MarvinRayBurns

Following your Link....5 Billion Years until the Day the Earth ceases to Exist! I have seen this Figure given before,all to do with the Sun Burning up!
It could be a very Scientific assumption and maybe quite Accurate?
Nice to get some Sensible on Subject Response

GiB.

LQ · 2011-01-10 07:57:26

bobbym wrote:

Hi LQ;
Sorry it is my fault. I am critical today. Thanks for noticing and helping.

Actually I meant GiB but I guess you got a few softpoints so to speak!

LQ · 2011-01-10 07:59:37

GeniusIsBack wrote:

Hi MarvinRayBurns
Following your Link....5 Billion Years until the Day the Earth ceases to Exist! I have seen this Figure given before,all to do with the Sun Burning up!
It could be a very Scientific assumption and maybe quite Accurate?
Nice to get some Sensible on Subject Response
GiB.

GiB, I am afraid not. I believe that scientists will find that around 114.66 ly from here there is a black hole. It will eventually start to swollow mass and then we die from the light, I trust.

Last edited by LQ (2011-01-10 08:01:27)

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-10 09:59:10

comment removed - insulting to another member, flaming.

LQ · 2011-01-10 10:05:40

No, honestly, that black hole is too close to not eat us before the sun becomes a red giant.

bobbym · 2011-01-10 10:10:30

Hi GiB;

It's Funny!... LQ Had to Try and get His Two Pence Worth in..Just like the other One Tried!

Please try to be a little nicer to the other members here. LQ is only posting as he should. Who is the other that you are speaking of?

Also, two pence, I know it is an old expression but everyone's viewpoint is valid, just as valid as yours. In a thread like this no one has the answers, so let us keep it fun.

Math Is Fun Forum

#26 2011-01-08 06:37:00

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#27 2011-01-08 06:48:28

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#28 2011-01-09 01:50:29

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#29 2011-01-09 04:09:13

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#30 2011-01-09 05:58:23

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#31 2011-01-09 06:09:51

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#32 2011-01-09 06:10:41

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#33 2011-01-09 07:32:36

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#34 2011-01-09 07:50:27

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#35 2011-01-09 08:38:22

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#36 2011-01-09 08:54:03

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#37 2011-01-09 09:31:03

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#38 2011-01-09 09:50:13

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#39 2011-01-09 11:01:41

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#40 2011-01-09 11:32:34

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#41 2011-01-09 20:59:30

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#42 2011-01-09 22:02:39

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#43 2011-01-10 02:38:05

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#44 2011-01-10 03:16:45

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#45 2011-01-10 05:29:34

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#46 2011-01-10 07:57:26

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#47 2011-01-10 07:59:37

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#48 2011-01-10 09:59:10

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#49 2011-01-10 10:05:40

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#50 2011-01-10 10:10:30

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

Board footer