@glbert if monkeys can do it in infinite time then surely Lichess devs can do it in finite times? Or are you implying that they are worse than monkeys?
i refer you to my initial post. they have no plans to work on it. this means they are not trying. if you need further explanation, just ping me again.
@glbert said in #22:
> i refer you to my initial post. they have no plans to work on it. this means they are not trying. if you need further explanation, just ping me again.
How is that relevant? Monkeys are not trying either.
> i refer you to my initial post. they have no plans to work on it. this means they are not trying. if you need further explanation, just ping me again.
How is that relevant? Monkeys are not trying either.
@PxJ said in #23:
> How is that relevant? Monkeys are not trying either.
there's a different quality in how the monkeys do not try versus how the lichess devs do not try:
the monkeys do not try by producing random typing, which may result in either shakespear's works or the implementation of a chess variant, given infinite time.
the lichess devs do not try by consciously producing useful code that is definitely not the implementation of a chess variant or shakespear's work, but instead the "lichess tutor" according to their latest blog post on coming features.
so in case this is not clear: the chance of accidentally implementing a chess variant is considerably lower when you are actively trying to not implement a chess variant, compared to just random monkey typing.
this does not mean though that the lichess devs are "worse" than the monkeys as you phrased it.
still need further explanations? just ping me again.
> How is that relevant? Monkeys are not trying either.
there's a different quality in how the monkeys do not try versus how the lichess devs do not try:
the monkeys do not try by producing random typing, which may result in either shakespear's works or the implementation of a chess variant, given infinite time.
the lichess devs do not try by consciously producing useful code that is definitely not the implementation of a chess variant or shakespear's work, but instead the "lichess tutor" according to their latest blog post on coming features.
so in case this is not clear: the chance of accidentally implementing a chess variant is considerably lower when you are actively trying to not implement a chess variant, compared to just random monkey typing.
this does not mean though that the lichess devs are "worse" than the monkeys as you phrased it.
still need further explanations? just ping me again.
I play all the chess variants available here, because I prefer this site, and the variants which aren't here, like Gothic, Courier, Mini Forest, Duck, etc, in chess.com
I don't see any other solution in the foreseeable future.
I don't see any other solution in the foreseeable future.
@glbert said in #24:
> when you are actively trying to not implement a chess variant
I contest your point that they are trying to not implement a chess variant. A priori, it is true that implementation the "lichess tutor" feature (who asked for it btw?) does not entail implementing a chess variant. But "does not entail implementing a chess variant" is NOT the same as "entails not implementing a chess variant".
What if at some point they realise that, for some obscure reason, in order to complete the Lichess tutor feature they must also implement bughouse? Or even, what if after having too much coffee their fingers are fidgety and they start randomly typing the implementation of bughouse? Do you think they will stop just because they realise it's implementing bughouse? If they were "trying to not implement a chess variant" they would have to stop.
Can you prove that this can't happen?
> when you are actively trying to not implement a chess variant
I contest your point that they are trying to not implement a chess variant. A priori, it is true that implementation the "lichess tutor" feature (who asked for it btw?) does not entail implementing a chess variant. But "does not entail implementing a chess variant" is NOT the same as "entails not implementing a chess variant".
What if at some point they realise that, for some obscure reason, in order to complete the Lichess tutor feature they must also implement bughouse? Or even, what if after having too much coffee their fingers are fidgety and they start randomly typing the implementation of bughouse? Do you think they will stop just because they realise it's implementing bughouse? If they were "trying to not implement a chess variant" they would have to stop.
Can you prove that this can't happen?
Dear Lichess, please add Duck chess. I had to re-login to my chess*m app to play it :(
> What if at some point they realise that, for some obscure reason, in order to complete the Lichess tutor feature they must also implement bughouse?
that's quite literally impossible. adding a new variant can only add complexity from tutor, not remove it. for example, adding a new variant means you have to implement it into the engine, which can only make tutor worse.
> Or even, what if after having too much coffee their fingers are fidgety and they start randomly typing the implementation of bughouse?
you are aware that someone created a working fork of lichess that had bughouse? github.com/nhulbert/lila/tree/bughouse
there's videos of it somewhere as well, and for all i know the website they had might still work.
anyway. what happened is that the lichess devs did not include the code. if they randomly start typing the implementation of bughouse, they will either stop, or, more likely, be very interested in how that happens and finish typing it out, but then not push the commit.
still need further explanations? just ping me again.
that's quite literally impossible. adding a new variant can only add complexity from tutor, not remove it. for example, adding a new variant means you have to implement it into the engine, which can only make tutor worse.
> Or even, what if after having too much coffee their fingers are fidgety and they start randomly typing the implementation of bughouse?
you are aware that someone created a working fork of lichess that had bughouse? github.com/nhulbert/lila/tree/bughouse
there's videos of it somewhere as well, and for all i know the website they had might still work.
anyway. what happened is that the lichess devs did not include the code. if they randomly start typing the implementation of bughouse, they will either stop, or, more likely, be very interested in how that happens and finish typing it out, but then not push the commit.
still need further explanations? just ping me again.
@glbert ok you have laboriously debunked (or at least tried to) two possible counter-examples to your claim that "they are trying to not implement a chess variant", but you haven't adressed the more fundamental issue that
> "does not entail implementing a chess variant" is NOT the same as "entails not implementing a chess variant".
Proving something formally is not the same as picking a few cases and showing that in these particular cases, your claim holds.
> "does not entail implementing a chess variant" is NOT the same as "entails not implementing a chess variant".
Proving something formally is not the same as picking a few cases and showing that in these particular cases, your claim holds.
> but you haven't adressed the more fundamental issue that
not formally. but neither have you shown a formal proof of your assertion.
still need further explanations? just ping me again.
not formally. but neither have you shown a formal proof of your assertion.
still need further explanations? just ping me again.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.