The subject of "optimal play" is always in terms of "an optimal opponent"

This doesnt define what the "best move" is if at least one player is not one of these "optimal players."

Here then is the problem: The grandparant learned about minimax and now think that he is an expert on chess engines, but hasn't actually put enough thought into it to even pretend to be an expert. He injects long series of assumptions into his arguments in order to reinforce his reliance on knowing what minimax is as being the focal point of his supposed expertise.

The fact continues to be that the "best move" is not defined by minimax. The best move is defined by all the same criteria that poker theorists rely on: The opponents knowledge, tendencies, etc...

In poker if both players are "optimal" then the sum of the game is $0.00, and the sum of the two different positions in heads up player are exactly opposite each other. Ergo "optimal" in poker has all the same characteristics that it does in chess so why then do we allow ourselves to use one definition of "best" in poker (happily declaring "because psychology!") while arbitrarily assign "only optimal is best" (happily declaring "fuck psychology!") in chess?

We only do so if we are naively trying to justify a belief that hasnt any other justification. You think the top human chess players arent psyching each other out? arent bluffing? then you havent been paying attention.

Wrong. If every move leads to a draw in minimax, that does not mean that ever move is equal. Your thinking is extremely shallow on this subject.

Your sort of thinking is the same reason that the top chess engines sometimes suicide against its opponent because while the top engine sees that it is lost (and thus immediately commences to delay the loss as long as possible by sacrificing every piece that it can) its opponent does not see it.

Its straight up suicide, and now you please explain how straight up suicide is "best" play.

Chess rating websites like CCRL is chock-full of games where the losing engine saw that it was losing while its opponent did not (the engine evals are in the pgn files), and then the losing engine proceeded to force the loss. Made sure that it happened. Guaranteed it. Saw to it that its opponent would eventually and with certainty find a win.

The problem here is that some people for some extremely bizarre reason think that stuff like cable television is a necessity. Because of this they think that abstaining causes them harm.

The facts are that if you are paying $150/month for your deluxe cable package, then you must think that its actually worth it. All the bitching about the cost is a dishonesty because its not a god damned necessity you god damned imbecile.

Also of note is that in the end even if ESPN wins in court, Verizon still does not have to do what ESPN wants them to do. In American contract law, it is always cold hard cash that makes the harmed party "whole." The court will put a dollar value on the contract breach and award it to the plaintiff if Verizon wants out of the contract.

For a highly restricted definition of "best", sure...

It does if it wants a maximal score in a tournament...

You have defined "best" to mean "best against this opponent" in poker, but have arbitrarily defined "best" to not mean the same thing in chess.... there is no justification for using separate definitions here.

...and intentionally injected with misinformation...

Memorizing chances isn't very important in no-limit. A rough estimate is all you need because other factors will completely dominate whatever error exists in your estimate. When the implied odds can vary between ~1:1 and 100:1, the second or third digit of your estimate of the chances of making a winning hand (for instance, ~2.5:1 against making a flush) is drowned out.

In car analogy terms, its like worrying about if insurance will cover the broken taillight after your car has been t-boned at an intersection by another car going 60 mph. Yeah, it would be nice if the insurance will replace that taillight... but its more important that they will cover the hospital bills

Isn't necessary for chess... the top competitive chess programs (like the foss stockfish...) are not the best suited to beating humans... they still beat humans repeatedly, without mercy, game after game after game. Even the world (human) chess champion (Magnus Carlsen) admits that playing one of these engines is like repeatedly ramming your head into a wall.

No, it doesnt depend. All the cards that you have seen are visible to you for the entire hand. Card counting is about remembering statistics about cards that you have seen but are no longer visible.

The guy that you linked to thinks that knowing how many outs you have is "card counting" -- no. you also apparently think so, which means that you cannot possibly have anything to add on this subject (and your ignorance on this subject is not a secret to you, so why are you pretending?)

I do not understand why people do not use the proper term for this, data dredging.

None of the things that you listed are more expensive because of income equality, and they also don't make your point for you.

Energy? Televisions use far less power now. Light bulbs use far less power now. Even transportation uses far less power now. What does not use far less power now? People, because they enjoy more goods and services now.

"Healthy" food? There is no objective squeeze on food in America, only in your mind. Americans eat more than anyone else on earth. We are #1 on the list of countries in food consumption per capita.

Property? The people in government are making sure that you pay more for a home than its actually worth. Keep inflating the bubble, baby!

Nope. I am pointing out that you people greatly over-state things. For instance, when I pointed out that it wasn't "a lot of racists" you went all the way to "no racists,"

Have fun in the fantasy land of full blown intellectual dishonesty.

Because who doesnt want to think that they deserve more?

Its easy to convince people that they deserve more. It doesnt require a good argument, only a lazy and selfish listener. Once convinced, they will ignore the good arguments on their own.

sigh... only if you measure "real wages" is a non-meaningful way.

The only meaningful way is to count not the currency but instead the goods and services that the population enjoys. However everything else that you said indicate that thats the last way that you think that it should be measured. You want to count dollars which have arbitrary useless meaning rather than something important.

No it wasn't. Your second point just hopes that only a few, and I quote, "dinky nukes" will be built and that the the rest of the world will strike down this country before any more are built because the only countries that can build them post-disarmament are, and I quote, "rogue states."

Pure fantasy.

(A) No country that has built nukes has ever built "just a few dinky nukes" - so you are imagining a world that doesnt even fit objective reality.
(B) Every country has friends, even "rogue states", and its always a good idea to be friendly with the nuke holders. This is again an objective reality. Its the reality right now.

Your argument is based on the idea that reality is somehow so completely different to the objective reality we can see that it doesnt even pass first muster. Its just the pure wishful thinking of a naive person.