Get Real! wrote:Look at all the stupid things you were posting from the onset you idiotic little wombat...
“Chess is just one of the examples that a computer would need billions of trillions of years to examine all possibilities…”What the fuck were you smoking?
Just because we ignored your childish tossings doesn’t mean that what you were writing was OK Pyro… it was downright STUPID, but why bog down with your feeble brain?
You think I find you interesting?
Instead, most of us who knew better turned a blind eye and pressed on with the topic.
The little prick who can not even use a scientific calculator to do a simple calculation spent a whole post claiming that what I said was stupid !!
Here's the data boy:
Considering the lowest possible number of moves in Chess to be 10 E40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_numberConsidering the Stockfish program plugged with 64 CPUs could only do 700 million moves per second
(links provided at the beginning of this topic)
Considering there is a certain number of seconds per year
(no link for that-I will leave it as an exercise to you )
Would Stockfish need 4.53 E25 years to do the first move YES OR NO?
How many billions of trillions of trillions of years is that?
But lets say that I had no good skills and the reason I didn't want to show my work was because I was ashamed of it. In that case I would still be good enough to at least understand how bad my work is. In your case you are so clueless you don't even realize how clueless you are and you shamelessly promote things like "your browser" and you believe it is better than Chrome or Firefox! It is that "illusory superiority" of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
