there's nowhere even near hospitable in this solar system
Thats why you build it and launch it into space.
One day billions of human beings will live on millions of space stations, each its own island in the void between your limited only-gravity-wells imagination.
Not everyone swears in their day to day life, let alone at authority figures. Not everyone cheats. Not everyone lies.
So you are saying that some people do all of these things. Now start taking random samples from this population...
You do understand how this works, right? It is inevitable that eventually the last N randomly selected members with all swear, cheat, lie, etc...
If the situation cited here were common, your argument would have merit. However the situation cited here is a single outlier, so your argument doesnt apply. It is not only possible that every member of a class are among the top 5% worst behaving people, it is *inevitable* that eventually this will happen.
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.
No -- There is an absolute best way to win in chess, from every possible position, and it can be calculated.
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 is that the only real option you have is abstaining.
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.
That said, it's entirely possible that Verizon's contract with ESPN is worded in such a way that they can get away with doing this. Verizon seems to think so, but ESPN seems to disagree. So that's where an impartial (theoretically) judge decides the result of how its worded, and how it will be enforced.
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.
In chess all players know the complete state and the best move is to make the beat move possible, regardless of what your opponent may be thinking.
For a highly restricted definition of "best", sure...
Chess isn't an AI problem,because it does not need to learn about the nature of your play.
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.
You want AI that's capable of making good decisions even when the information is incomplete.
People struggle at memorizing chances, taking shortcuts, computers have exact picture talking into account every single bit.
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
I think he's wrong on this. A computer would still need to consider what his opponent thinks he holds and raise accordingly.
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.
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?)
We've got more gadgets, but energy, healthy food, and property, the most "real" things you can get, have not gotten cheaper in line with the reduction in incomes.
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!