@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ Many however see [go](go.md) as yet a more [beautiful](beauty.md) game: a more m
Chess as a game is not and cannot be [copyrighted](copyright.md), but **can chess games (moves played in a match) be copyrighted?** Thankfully there is a pretty strong consensus and precedence that say this is not the case, even though [capital worshippers](capitalism.md) try to play the intellectual property card from time to time (e.g. 2016 tournament organizers tried to stop chess websites from broadcasting the match moves under "trade secret protection", unsuccessfully).
**Chess and [IQ](iq.md)/intelligence**: there is a debate about how much of a weight general vs specialized intelligence, IQ, memory and pure practice have in becoming good at chess. It's not clear at all, everyone's opinion differs. A popular formula states that *highest achievable Elo = 1000 + 10 * IQ*, though its accuracy and validity are of course highly questionable. All in all this is probably very similar to language learning: obviously some kind of intelligence/talent is needed to excel, however chess is extremely similar to any other sport in that putting HUGE amounts of time and effort into practice (preferably from young age) is what really makes you good -- without practice even the biggest genius in the world will be easily beaten by a casual chess amateur, and even a relatively dumb man can learn chess very well under the right conditions (just like any dumbass can learn at least one language well); many highest level chess players admit they sucked at math and hated it. As one starts playing chess, he seems to more and more discover that it's really all about studying and practice more than anything else, at least up until the highest master levels where the genius gives a player the tiny nudge needed for the win -- at the grandmaster level intelligence seems to start to matter more. Intelligence is perhaps more of an accelerator of learning, not any hard limit on what can be achieved, however also just having fun and liking chess (which may be just given by upbringing etc.) may have similar accelerating effects on learning. Really the very basics can be learned by literally ANYONE, then it's just about learning TONS of concepts and principles (and automatizing them), be it tactical patterns (forks, pins, double check, discovery checks, sacrifices, smothered mates, ...), good habits, positional principles (pawn structure, king safety, square control, piece activity, ...), opening theory (this alone takes many years and can never end), endgame and mating patterns, time management etcetc.
## Chess In General
Chess evolved from ancient board games in India in about 6th century. Nowadays the game is internationally governed by **FIDE** which has taken the on role of an authority that defines the official rules: FIDE rules are considered to be the standard chess rules. FIDE also organizes tournaments, promotes the game and keeps a list of registered players whose performance it rates with so called Elo system – based on the performance it also grants titles such as **Grandmaster** (GM, strongest), **Internation Master** (IM, second strongest) or **Candidate Master** (CM). A game of chess is so interesting in itself that chess is usually not played for money like many other games ([poker](poker.md), [backgammon](backgammon.md), ...).
@ -44,7 +46,7 @@ Currently the best player in the world is pretty clearly Magnus Carlsen from Nor
During [covid](covid.md) chess has experienced a small boom among normies and [YouTube](youtube.md) chess channels have gained considerable popularity. This gave rise to [memes](meme.md) such as the bong cloud opening popularized by a top player and streamer Hikaru Nakamura; the bong cloud is an intentionally shitty opening that's supposed to taunt the opponent (it's been even played in serious tournaments lol).
**White is generally seen as having a slight advantage over black** (just like in [real life](irl.md) lol) because he always has the first move. This doesn't play such as big role in beginner and intermediate games but starts to become apparent in master games. How big the advantages is is a matter of ongoing debate, most people are of the opinion there exists a slight advantage, some people think chess is a win for white with perfect play while others believe chess is a draw with perfect play. Probably only very tiny minority of people think white doesn't have any advantage.
**White is generally seen as having a slight advantage over black** (just like in [real life](irl.md) lol). It is because he always has the first move -- statistics also seems to support this as white on average wins a little more often. This doesn't play such as big role in beginner and intermediate games but starts to become apparent in master games. How big the advantages is is a matter of ongoing debate, most people are of the opinion there exists a slight advantage for the white (with imperfect play, i.e. that white plays easier, tolerates slightly less accurate play), though most experts think chess is a draw with perfect play (pro players can usually quite safely play for a draw and secure it if they don't intend to win; world championships mostly consist of drawn games as really one player has to make a mistake to allow the other one to win). Minority of experts think white has theoretical forced win. Probably only very tiny minority of people think white doesn't have any advantage. Some people argue black has some advantages over white, as it's true that sometimes the obligation to make a move may be a disadvantage. Probably no one thinks black has a forced win, though that's not disproved yet so maybe someone actually believes it.
On **perfect play**: as stated, chess is unlikely to be ever solved so it is unknown if chess is a theoretical forced draw or forced win for white (or even win for black), however many simplified endgames and some simpler chess variants have already been solved. Even if chess was ever solved, it is important to realize one thing: **perfect play may be unsuitable for humans** and so even if chess was ever solved, it might have no significant effect on the game played by humans. Imagine the following: we have a chess position in which we are deciding between move *A* and move *B*. We know that playing *A* leads to a very good position in which white has great advantage and easy play (many obvious good moves), however if black plays perfectly he can secure a draw here. We also know that if we play *B* and then play perfectly for the next 100 moves, we will win with mathematical certainty, but if we make just one incorrect move during those 100 moves, we will get to a decisively losing position. While computer will play move *B* here because it is sure it can play perfectly, it is probably better to play *A* for human because human is very likely to make mistakes (even a master). For this reason humans may willingly choose to play mathematically worse moves -- it is because a slightly worse move may lead to a safer and more comfortable play for a human.
@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ A work which is not covered by copyright (and any other IP) -- which is nowadays
[Free software](free_software.md) (and free art etc.) is **not** automatically public domain, it is mostly still copyrighted, i.e. "owned" by someone, but the owner has given some key rights to everyone with a free software license and by doing so minimized or even eliminated the negative effects of full copyright. The owner may still keep the rights e.g. to being properly credited in all copies of the software, which he may enforce in court. Similarly software that is in public domain is **not** automatically free software -- this holds only if source code for this software is available (so that the rights to studying and modifying can be executed).
**Copyright encourages murder.** The sooner the author dies, the sooner his material will run out of copyright, so if you want some nice work to enter public domain soon, you are literally led by the law to try for him to die as soon as possible.
@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ Here is a list of notable encyclopedias, focused on general knowledge English la
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia| 2002 | proprietary | 1 vol. 2000p| 28K | nice, short descriptions, condensed from the main multivol. Brit., piratable pdf |
| **Britannica online** |...now | proprietary | online | 130K | bloated, high quality articles, unpaid is limited and with ads |
| [Citizendium](citizendium.md) |2006...|proprietary? (NC) | online | 18K | Wikipedia alternative, censored, faggots have unclear license |
| Chambers Encyclopedia (new) | 2001 | proprietary | 1 vol. 980p | | 1 vol republication of old multivol. enc. (going back to 1800s, already PD), topic-sorted |
| Collier's New Encyclopedia | 1921 | PD (old) | 10 vol. | | NOT TO BE CONFUSED with Collier's Encyclopedia (different one), digitized on Wikisource (txt) |
| Columbia Encyclopedia |1935...| proprietary | 1 vol. ~3Kp | ~50K | high quality, lots of information { Read the 1993 edition, it's super nice. ~drummyfish } |
|[Conservaedia](conservapedia.md)|2006...| proprietary | online | 52K | American fascist wiki, has basic factual errors |
Most generally game is a form of play which is restricted by certain rules, the goal of which is typically [fun](fun.md), challenge and/or [competition](competition.md). A game may have various combinations of mathematical/mental elements (e.g. competitive mental calculations, mathematically defined rules, ...), physical elements (based in [real life](irl.md) physics, e.g. [football](football.md), [marble racing](marble_racing.md), ...) and even other types of elements (e.g. social, psychological, ...); nowadays very popular games are [computer](computer.md) games, or video games (also gaymes or vidya, e.g. [Anarch](anarch.md), [minesweeper](minesweeper.md), [Doom](doom.md), ...), which are played with the help of a computer. An entity (human, computer, animal, ...) playing a game is called a player and his ability to play it well is called [skill](skill.md). *Game* is also a [mathematical](math.md) term in [game theory](game_theory.md) which studies games and competition rigorously.
Most generally game is a form of play which is restricted by certain rules, the goal of which is typically [fun](fun.md), challenge and/or [competition](competition.md). A game may have various combinations of mathematical/mental elements (e.g. competitive mental calculations, mathematically defined rules, ...), physical elements (based in [real life](irl.md) physics, e.g. [football](football.md), [marble racing](marble_racing.md), ...) and even other types of elements (e.g. social, psychological, ...); nowadays very popular games are [computer](computer.md) games, or video games (also gaymes or vidya, e.g. [Anarch](anarch.md), [minesweeper](minesweeper.md), [Doom](doom.md), ...), which are played with the help of a computer. An entity (human, computer, animal, ...) playing a game is called a player and his ability to play it well is called [skill](skill.md); however some games may involve pure [randomness](randomness.md) and chance which may limit or even eliminate the need of skill (e.g. [rock paper scissors](rock_paper_scissors.md)). *Game* is also a [mathematical](math.md) term in [game theory](game_theory.md) which studies games and competition rigorously.
A fun take at the very concept of a game is [Nomic](nomic.md), a game in which changing the game rules is part of the game. It leads to all kinds of mindfucks.
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ A fun take at the very concept of a game is [Nomic](nomic.md), a game in which c
It's quite hard to exactly define what a game is, it is a [fuzzy](fuzzy.md) concept, and it is also hard to categorize games. Let us now define a simple classification of games by their basic nature, which will hopefully be suitable for us here:
- **[mathematical](math.md) games**: Games taking place in an abstract mathematical space, with exactly defined rules. Though mathematical games may of course be represented in real life (e.g. by physical chess pieces made of wood), such a representation is only a helper for the player and doesn't rule the game out of this category.
- **[mathematical](math.md) games**: Games taking place in an abstract mathematical space, with exactly defined rules. Though mathematical games may of course be represented in real life (e.g. by physical chess pieces made of wood), such a representation is only a helper for the player and doesn't rule the game out of this category. Mathematicians try to *solve* these games in various ways, e.g. by trying to construct an [algorithm](algorithm.md) for perfect play or proving that with perfect play one of the players can always secure a win.
- **[computer](computer.md) games**: Mathematical games that practically REQUIRE a computer (and usually have been design as such) to be played due to the computations involved being very numerous and/or complex -- for example [Doom](doom.md).
- **non-computer mathematical games**: Mathematical games that do not require a computer (though of course their computer implementations may exist) as the calculations involved can be practically performed without it -- for example [chess](chess.md).
- **[real life](irl.md) games**: Games taking place in real life, i.e. usually making use of real world physics or other laws (e.g. social ones) -- for example [football](football.md) or [marble racing](marble_racing.md).
@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ Furthermore many different ways of division and classifications are widely used
- [strategy](strategy.md)
- [adventures](adventure.md)
- [sport](sport.md)
- [sandbox](sandbox.md)
- ...
- by game design:
- [easy to learn, hard to master](easy_to_learn_hard_to_master.md)
@ -49,12 +50,16 @@ Furthermore many different ways of division and classifications are widely used
- [command line/text](cli.md)
- audio
- ...
- by importance of skill:
- purely skill based
- involving chance
- purely chance based
- by time management:
- [realtime](realtime.md)
- [turn based](turn_based.md)
- by platform
- [real life](irl.md)
- [computer](computer.md) ([console](console.md) vs [PC](pc.md))
- [computer](computer.md) ([console](console.md) vs [PC](pc.md), ...)
- by budget/scale/financing:
- amateur
- [indie](indie.md)
@ -139,4 +144,5 @@ As for **non-computer games**: these are usually closer to LRS than any computer
@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ This is a summary of some main guidelines on how an LRS supporter should behave
- **Do NOT support [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) ([LGBT](lgbt.md), [feminism](feminism.md), [Antifa](antifa.md), [soyence](soyence.md) ...)**, don't become [type A fail](fail_ab.md). Of course you should equally reject [rightism](right.md), but that goes without saying.
- **Do NOT engage in [political correctness](political_correctness.md)**. Remember that staying silent often means supporting status quo, so the more deceit you see in society, the more you should try to not stay silent and the more you should try to tell the truth.
- **Free yourself from the system** -- similarly to how you free yourself technologically, free yourself also socially, live frugally and minimize your expenses. Stop consuming, stop living in luxury, stop spending money for shit (gyms, sports, clothes, car, streaming services, games, cigarettes, ...), use free things that people throw away and enjoy hobbies that are cheap (programming, reading books, going for walks, playing chess, ...). **Stop watching news** (it's just brainwashing and distraction, what's really important will get to you anyway), stop engaging in fashion, stop talking to retards. You need very little to live, you don't even need internet connection; with good computing you can hack offline and only connect to the internet once in a while on some public wifi to download emails and upload your programs. Make yourself self sufficient, prepare for the [collapse](collapase.md). If you can live somewhere in the woods and would enjoy it, go for it.
- **Search for [truth](truth.md)**. You won't find it easily, real truth is always censored and hidden (though often in plain sight), but you can train yourself to spot propaganda and see the red flags. You won't find truth through Google, use different sources, read old books and different points of view (e.g. contrast articles on [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) with those on [Infogalactic](infogalactic.d)). Question EVERYTHING (absolutely everything, even this). Do not fall into traps such as [pseudoskepticism](pseudoskepticism.md). Train your mind to think critically, avoid [shortcut thinking](shortcut_thinking.md), question your own biased beliefs and wishes.
- **Search for [truth](truth.md)**. You won't find it easily, real truth is always censored and hidden (though often in plain sight), but you can train yourself to spot propaganda and see the red flags. You won't find truth through Google, use different sources, read old books and different points of view (e.g. contrast articles on [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) with those on [Infogalactic](infogalactic.d)). **Question EVERYTHING** (absolutely everything, even this statement). Do not fall into traps such as [pseudoskepticism](pseudoskepticism.md). Train your mind to think critically, avoid [shortcut thinking](shortcut_thinking.md), question your own biased beliefs and wishes.
- **Reject harmful things like [proprietary](proprietary.md) software, [capitalism](capitalism.md), [copyright](copyright.md), [bloat](bloat.md), [work](work.md) etc.** Use and promote the ethical equivalents, i.e. [free software](free_software.md), [free culture](free_culture.md), frugality, [anarchism](anarchism.md) etc.
- **Be a [generalist](generalism.md), see the big picture, study the whole world**, do not become overspecialized in the capitalist way. Sure you may become an expert at something, but it shouldn't make your view of the world too narrow. You may spend most of your time studying and programming computer compilers for example, but still do (and enjoy) other things, for example reading fiction, studying religions, languages, psychology, playing [go](go.md), making music, building houses, painting, doing sports, ...
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ TODO: some noice tree of sciences or smth
**There is no simple objective definition of a strict science** -- the definition of science is hugely arbitrary, political and changes with development of society, technology, culture, changes in government and so on. Science should basically stand for the most rational and objective knowledge we're able to practically obtain about something, however the specific criteria for this are unclear and have to be agreed on. The [scientific method](scientific_method.md) is evolving and there are many debates over it, with some even stating that there can be no universal method of science. The [p-value](p_value.md) used to determine whether measurements are statistically significant has basically just an arbitrarily set value for what's considered a "safe enough" result. Some say that if a research is to be trusted, it has to be [peer reviewed](peer_review.md), i.e. that what's scientific has to be approved by chosen experts -- this may be not just because people can make mistakes but also because in current highly competitive society there appears science [bloat](bloat.md), obscurity and tendencies to push fake research and purposeful deception, i.e. our politics and culture are already defining what science is. However the stricter the criteria for science, the more monopolized, centralized, controlled and censored it becomes.
**Science is not almighty** as brainwashed internet [euphoric](atheism.md) kids like to think, that's a completely false idea fed to them by the overlords who abuse "science" ([soyence](soyence.md)) for control of the masses, as religion was and is still used -- soyence is the new religion [nowadays](21st_century.md). Yes, (true) science is great, it is an awesome tool, but it is just that -- a tool, usable for SOME tasks, not a [silver bullet](silver_bullet.md) that could be used for everything. What can be discovered by science is in fact quite limited, exactly because it purposefully LIMITS itself only to accept what CAN be proven and so remains silent about everything else (which however doesn't mean there lies no knowledge or value in the everything else or in other approaches to learning) -- see e.g. Godel's incompleteness theorems that state it is mathematically impossible to really prove validity of mathematics, or the nice compendium of all knowability limitations at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html. For many (if not most) things we deal in life science is either highly impractical (do you need to fund a peer reviewed research to decide what movie you'll watch today?) or absolutely useless (setting one's meaning of life, establishing one's basic moral axioms, placing completely random bets, deciding to trust or distrust someone while lacking scientifically relevant indicators for either, answering metaphysical questions such as "Why is there ultimately something rather than nothing?" etc.). So don't be Neil de Grass puppet and stop treating science as your omnipotent pimplord, it's just a hammer useful for bashing some specific nails.
**Science is not almighty** as brainwashed internet [euphoric](atheism.md) kids like to think, that's a completely false idea fed to them by the overlords who abuse "science" ([soyence](soyence.md)) for control of the masses, as religion was and is still used -- soyence is the new religion [nowadays](21st_century.md). Yes, (true) science is great, it is an awesome tool, but it is just that -- a tool, usable for SOME tasks, not a [silver bullet](silver_bullet.md) that could be used for everything. What can be discovered by science is in fact quite limited, exactly because it purposefully LIMITS itself only to accept what CAN be proven and so remains silent about everything else (which however doesn't mean there lies no knowledge or value in the everything else or in other approaches to learning) -- see e.g. Godel's incompleteness theorems that state it is mathematically impossible to really prove validity of mathematics, or the nice compendium of all knowability limitations at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html. For many (if not most) things we deal in life science is either highly impractical (do you need to fund a peer reviewed research to decide what movie you'll watch today?) or absolutely useless (setting one's meaning of life, establishing one's basic moral values, placing completely random bets, deciding to trust or distrust someone while lacking scientifically relevant indicators for either, answering metaphysical questions such as "Why is there ultimately something rather than nothing?", anything that cannot be falsified, if only for practical reasons etc.). So don't be Neil de Grass puppet and stop treating science as your omnipotent pimplord, it's just a hammer useful for bashing some specific nails.
**What should we accept as "legit" science?** [We](lrs.md), in the context of our [ideal society](less_retarded_society.md), argue for NOT creating a strict definition of science, just as we are for example against "formalizing morality" with laws etc. There are no hard lines between good and evil, fun and boring, useful and useless, bloated and minimal, and so also there is no strict line between science and non-science. What is and is not science is to be judged on a case-by-case basis and can be disagreed on without any issue, science cannot be a mass produced stream of papers that can automatically be marked OK or NOT OK. We might define the term **[less retarded science](less_retarded_science.md)** so as to distinguish today's many times twisted and corrupted "science/[soyence](soyence.md)" from the real, good and truly useful science. Less retarded science should follow similar principles as [our technology](lrs.md), it should be completely free as in freedom, [selfless](selflessness.md), [suckless](suckless.md) as much as possible, unobscured etc. -- especially stressed should be the idea of many people being able to reproduce less retarded science; e.g. Newton's law of gravitation is less retarded because it can easily be verified by anyone, while the existence of Higgs boson is not.
