Soredemo Ayumu wa Yosetekuru - Vol. 6 Ch. 73 - The 73rd move

[TakeiDaloui]

The love triangle... only it has now reversed. We thought the girl would steal the guy. We were worried for the wrong person.

 

[kaitengiri]

@ cor3zone

Breaking the rules is not variance.

Sorry, what rule was broken in the example?

 

[manabi]

@kaitengiri You have no idea what you're talking about, shogi is a complex game with lots of variance, much more so than chess. Players can use captured pieces as their own, so the game gets more complex as it goes along. It's easy to make mistakes as the complexity grows, so there's a huge amount of variance from match to match. It's telling how the AIs like Deep Blue solve the problem (emphasis added):

Traditional chess engines – including the world computer chess champion Stockfish and IBM’s ground-breaking Deep Blue – rely on thousands of rules and heuristics handcrafted by strong human players that try to account for every eventuality in a game.

There is no simple path from start to finish for a shogi game, there's a ton of variance that has to be accounted for.

You like the new girl and that's fine, but stop making ridiculous excuses for her. Her attitude about wins and losses is, as Ayumu put it, a "nasty trait." It's also nonsensical.

Edit: Also, it won't ping people if you put a space between the @ and the nickname.

 

[Ygglidashi]

Dam, this character is so annoying

 

[cor3zone]

@kaitengiri
Like manabi pointed out, I don't get pinged if there's a space.

Are you really going to pull that? Punching your opponent in the face and then playing their turn yourself, isn't a rulebreak? Fuck off.

 

[kaitengiri]

@manabi

shogi is a complex game with lots of variance, much more so than chess. Players can use captured pieces as their own, so the game gets more complex as it goes along.

? That's not variance. Variance is basically game design terminology for "luck", but also covers things like hidden information. Variance would be the dice in monopoly, or someone's hand of cards in Poker. Shogi and Chess have 0 variance because there is no luck element. Both players have perfect information and all of their moves can be "predicted", and this includes the captured pieces. This doesn't mean that the game has no depth. Quite the opposite.

You like the new girl and that's fine,

I actually don't, lol. I just like playing devil's advocate.

Edit: Also, it won't ping people if you put a space between the @ and the nickname.

Oh, thank you for that, I didn't know that, and I did not notice the space.

@cor3zone

Punching your opponent in the face and then playing their turn yourself, isn't a rulebreak?

It's not. Just like there's no rule that says "You can't plan to play your opponent on a day when they are sick, or intimidate them by being surley" unless such a rule is made, which is usually part of a standard ruleset. Like how most professional league Golf tournaments use a set of rules which specifically state you can't punch opponents or attempt to intimidate them.

It's bad manners, and in the case of punching someone, actually breaking the law, sure. But the game has no rule for it, then it's not breaking a rule.

Also, just to cover this original point

Why does the human not count, when the human is the only thing that gets proven?

Because the game is testing the human to begin with. You only play multiple games to prove dominance in the game/task/skill when there is variance in the game itself to rule out statistical probability. With 0 variance, the human skill level gets proven exceptionally quickly to a point where there are very, very, very few cases of there ever being a matchup where one side dominates one day, then loses the next six without some form of malfeasance, or if the players are nearly 100% equal in skill level and one of them just tried something random. It's fine for Mahjong players to maintain a 1st place average of 26% because of very high variance. It would become front-page news in the world of Chess if Magnus Carlson or Nakamura lost a single match to someone rated 300 ELO or lower than them.

It is especially less likely for there to be the idea of variance or equal skill level here in a situation where one side has the advantage in position, then the other side overwhelmingly wins from this poorer position.

 

[cor3zone]

@kaitengiri
Punching is not the rulebreak, that's just shitty behaviour. Playing their turn is. It's literally one of the few rules of tic-tac-toe; the players take alternating turns.

You seem to misunderstand some core concepts. Humans are not static. There's a reason why most competitive activities have regular tournaments. There's a reason why one can't play and win once then call oneself world champion. I'm not familiar with Chess-masters, but I'm pretty damn sure none of them got famous and started calling themselves experts (or whatever) after beating a new opponent just once.

You seem to be using some lingo I'm not familiar with. Taken literally 'variance' applies to any variable, human factor included. Think about it; you can't have a competition without competitors. Chess is not a game unless you have players, it's merely objects and rules. I suppose you could rule out 'humans' by using AI, but then that's just a boring (if high level) math problem. Testing the human is the point, but since humans by nature are variable testing must re-occur.

 

[kaitengiri]

@cor3zone

Punching is not the rulebreak, that's just shitty behaviour. Playing their turn is. It's literally one of the few rules of tic-tac-toe; the players take alternating turns.

No rule that says I can't have a proxy for the turns. And then if there is such a rule, no rule yet that says I can't coerce you into playing your turn a certain way, etc, etc.

This is just really getting nitpicky into the metaphor. The entire point is that unless there actually is a specific rule, then no rule is broken.

I'm not familiar with Chess-masters, but I'm pretty damn sure none of them got famous and started calling themselves experts

Chess quite literally has a league of titles they hand out depending on how far up you get on the ELO, which can be determined categorically by beating opponents. They can quite literally beat one person and call themselves a master as long as they get certified by the proper channels and that person was high enough rank.

You seem to be using some lingo I'm not familiar with. Taken literally 'variance' applies any variable, human factor included.

Not really. If you take it literally, you'd have to start including many, many pedantic things, such as the weather conditions, cosmic rays, electromagnetic waves, people nearby, etc. But those are largely ignored, because they have nothing to do with the game itself. Chess has no luck mechanics and perfect information. Therefore, as defined, it has 0 variance.

I suppose you could rule out 'humans' by using AI, but then that's just a boring (if high level) math problem.

1. That's what it equates to
2. Very high level players quite often make the optimal computer-solution during games because they're crunching that math so hard.
3. You know you only take a math test once unless you completely fail it, right?

but since humans by nature are variable testing must re-occur.

Historically and statistically that's been pretty untrue if the game has low variance. Re-testing only occurs if there is some question about two people who play at a very high and very, very close level. Like, their matches are roughly 50% or often occur in draws. When there's even the slightest amount of dominance on one side in a 0 variance game, it will generally stay that way. Even in fighting games, with so many people and sooooo many "variables" of the human nature, they still only play double-elimination and they get VERY consistent results across decades worth of games.

 

[cor3zone]

@kaitengiri
The rules literally states that players take turns. Not proxies. If you play your opponent's turn yourself, you take over their 'player' position. So not technically a rulebreak, you're right, but you are then no longer playing your opponent, you're playing yourself. And that's fucking silly. If you want to nitpick.

Right, right. And I suppose some random schmuck can get "certified by the proper channels"? Supposing the opponent even accepts an official match with someone unproven.

So you can nitpick, play devil's advocate, but I can't? As defined by game design lingo, chess has 0 variance. As defined by the literal meaning of 'variance' the very fact that humans play gives it variance.

You know no-one that completed any lengthy education in the history of ever, only took one math test, right? Just like one win doesn't definitively prove superiority.

Again, historically and statistically, no-one competes once in their entire life and calls themself world champion. At least not without massive ridicule. You have to win repeatedly to even play at that high level.

 

[kaitengiri]

@cor3zone

The rules literally states that players take turns. Not proxies.

Sorry, can you show me the rule that says who takes what turn and how?

Let's not get too into this, I think you get the point of the metaphor, and again, this is just silly nitpicky stuff to demonstrate a point here. We can literally spend all day pointing out that you can't find a ruleset that includes these things, and even when you do find it, I'm just going to say "When did I agree to play by their rules again?" and go around in a big circle.

Let's put an end to that. You know what I mean, and I'm not really interested in the loop for this particular portion. It's old.

I will comment on this last bit though:

you are then no longer playing your opponent, you're playing yourself.

Two people entered the match, and one walked away a winner. The world doesn't particularly care how unless a rule was broken. Them's the breaks.

And I suppose some random schmuck can get "certified by the proper channels"?

Literally everyone is a random schmuck until they're proven.

Supposing the opponent even accepts an official match with someone unproven.

You can just walk up and ask to have your score tested. They don't place you at 0, they generally have algorithms and other tests to use to get your initial placement. Otherwise, it would be a very tedious process for someone who has played and practiced for years and then decided only now to join the ranking system, wouldn't it?

So you can nitpick, play devil's advocate, but I can't?

I play devil's advocate until I find the argument or opponent is getting dull. You're likewise free to do the same to me at any time.

As defined by game design lingo, chess has 0 variance.

Yes, and because the conversation began with this topic being in game design and ranking, that is literally the only definition I will accept as valid. The "human-element" stuff is nonsense and has no relation other than your straw grasping.

You know no-one that completed any lengthy education in the history of ever, only took one math test, right?

Nice goalpost move. You know you can quite actually test out of math requirements for many courses, right?

Again, historically and statistically, no-one competes once in their entire life and calls themself world champion. At least not without massive ridicule. You have to win repeatedly to even play at that high level.

Nice goalpost move. No, nobody in the world has played a single game of anything, called themselves world champion, refused all challenges, and then was taken seriously. Except for speed-runners. And a handful of other arcade champions. But that's besides the point.

You're totally right here, and that means that you've completely blown open the idea that, between two people playing a game with zero variance, there is TOTALLY no way that one having a super huge overwhelming and superior victory even from a disadvantageous position could be anything OTHER than a single, one-time fluke, and clearly we have to run the match again to reduce for variables such as lunar condition, the temperature in the tea mugs, and how many times the home room teacher yawned that morning. Clearly.

 

[HailBritannia_]

I love this Rin girl

 

[cor3zone]

@kaitengiri

Sorry, can you show me the rule that says who takes what turn and how?

Wikipedia is not really a super reliable source, but since tic tac toe is old as shit I'll trust it:

Tic-tac-toe (American English), noughts and crosses (Commonwealth English), or Xs and Os is a paper-and-pencil game for two players, X and O, who take turns marking the spaces in a 3×3 grid. The player who succeeds in placing three of their marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row is the winner.

If you are stupid enough to not realize that means alternating, you fucking deserve to lose to some dickhead punching your lights out.

I play devil's advocate until I find the argument or opponent is getting dull. You're likewise free to do the same to me at any time.

Then stop fucking complaining when I do, and I'll do the same.

Yes, and because the conversation began with this topic being in game design and ranking, that is literally the only definition I will accept as valid. The "human-element" stuff is nonsense and has no relation other than your straw grasping.

Stupid argument. This is not a forum exclusive to such discussions, so forcing those norms is fucking dumb. The manga is not about "game design and ranking", it is literally about relationships between humans.

Nice goalpost move. You know you can quite actually test out of math requirements for many courses, right?

Nice. And I imagine kids just starting school has that option? And also that higher education has no prior requirements at all?

Nice goalpost move. No, nobody in the world has played a single game of anything, called themselves world champion, refused all challenges, and then was taken seriously. Except for speed-runners. And a handful of other arcade champions. But that's besides the point.

No, that is almost literally what is happening here and what I am arguing against. Going back to your earlier comment:

It would become front-page news in the world of Chess if Magnus Carlson or Nakamura lost a single match to someone rated 300 ELO or lower than them.

Imagine if that did happen, by some fluke, and the winner then immediately dismissed any worth those two has. That is what is happening here, that is what I have a problem with, that is why I fucking hate this new girl. She won once, just earlier having lost in her competition of choice, and then immediately started treating Ayumu as a lesser person, not a lesser competitor.

Seeing as you seem like an eloquent but fucking retarded troll, I don't think this discussion will continue beyond this.

 

[kaitengiri]

@cor3zone

If you are stupid enough to not realize that means alternating, you fucking deserve to lose to some dickhead punching your lights out.

The turns alternate, but it never states who has to take that turn. Proxies are a real thing that happen in many other professional sports, so the rules need to define yadda yadda yadda.

Anyways, that's the last time I'm responding to this line, I already laid out how the argument goes, and you're insisting on continuing down it. I don't see the need.

Then stop fucking complaining when I do, and I'll do the same.

Stop calling you out when you're wrong? Nah.

This is not a forum exclusive to such discussions

Completely irrelevant. The discussion was started from a game design perspective commenting on the character's social etiquette because of that. You can't just jump in then decide the conversation should include irrelevant things because you believe that helps you out. It doesn't even help you out, because the beginning of the conversation was even stating that "the human element" doesn't actually statistically affect 0 variance games to begin with. Even if I included it, it wouldn't really help you prove your point here.

And I imagine kids just starting school has that option? And also that higher education has no prior requirements at all?

Higher education has those test specifically for people who haven't taken any formal education, or whose education were outside of institutions, like immigrants from other nations who might not have had any schooling at all.

Anyways, this is getting wildly off topic. I won't respond to this line anymore.

Imagine if that did happen, by some fluke, and the winner then immediately dismissed any worth those two has

Quite frankly, what would happen is the world would suddenly pay very close attention to this person because, as is my entire argument from the start, that just simply doesn't happen in games with 0 variance. The world will obviously not discredit the world champions, but would immediately acknowledge that this one player has a skill set far, far beyond the means of the champions, which would give his words weight when he says "these guys are garbo". Case and point, half of the plot of Hikaru No Go is literally about the Go world being flipped upside down because of a single match from an unknown and a pro. You rerun games with variance. You don't do that for games without unless the skill set of the two players is incredibly closely matched.

She won once, just earlier having lost in her competition of choice, and then immediately started treating Ayumu as a lesser person, not a lesser competitor.

All seriousness aside, quite frankly this is part of the real problem in a nutshell, but you're missattributing where your anger lies. Are you suggesting that if she had won twice, you would have been fine with the attitude shift? Three times? Twelve? No, of course not. She just has a shitty attitude no matter how many times she wins.

The only thing happening here is that the manga has elevated this into an extreme cartoon caricature trait where she switches into the school bully from beating someone at yahtzee. I won't be surprised if Ayumu challenges her to a coin flip, and she switches her attitude based off of that on the spot in upcoming chapters. Really, my only point is that the one game portion of it is the least of this issue, especially with Shogi.

Seeing as you seem like an eloquent but fucking retarded troll, I don't think this discussion will continue beyond this.

I don't think you're a troll or stupid. I just thing you're a little heavily invested in this emotionally, and maybe somewhat uneducated when it comes to high-level games and contests. Why don't you cool your head down for a bit, come back, and give a proper response.

 

[cor3zone]

@kaitengiri

Higher education has those test specifically for people who haven't taken any formal education, or whose education were outside of institutions, like immigrants from other nations who might not have had any schooling at all.

Still dumb. You just pointed out at least two tests. One to access higher education, one to complete.

All seriousness aside, quite frankly this is part of the real problem in a nutshell, but you're missattributing where your anger lies. Are you suggesting that if she had won twice, you would have been fine with the attitude shift? Three times? Twelve? No, of course not. She just has a shitty attitude no matter how many times she wins.

The only thing happening here is that the manga has elevated this into an extreme cartoon caricature trait where she switches into the school bully from beating someone at yahtzee. I won't be surprised if Ayumu challenges her to a coin flip, and she switches her attitude based off of that on the spot in upcoming chapters. Really, my only point is that the one game portion of it is the least of this issue, especially with Shogi.

Also dumb. The fact that all it took was one game amplifies the issue.

I don't think you're a troll or stupid. I just thing you're a little heavily invested in this emotionally, and maybe somewhat education when it comes to high-level games and contests. Why don't you cool your head down for a bit, come back, and give a proper response.

Well, I am a troll, occasionally. And so are you. "Takes one to know one."

 

[kaitengiri]

@cor3zone

Still dumb. You just pointed out at least two tests. One to access higher education, one to complete.

Wait, what? Where was the second one? My original statement was "There are tests you can use to test out of course requirements". There was no additional statement to that. The placement test IS this same test. It's used to place you, but if you score high enough, you can get out of the requirements. You can do this if you've been taking math for decades, or if you never touched an equation in your life.

Also, do keep in mind, this is actually a shift in topic from the original analogy which you moved the goal posts on, which was a person doesn't retake the same math test over and over on success. They actually usually take math tests of different levels, testing for completely different things in the same umbrella category, not the same 3rd grade test over and over again each time they succeed. Hell, even in the very same third grade, each test is usually about that chapter, which is still testing for new things even within that grade level. So this analogy is dumb on two different aspects.

So I'm not sure what exactly your overall point here is with this one anymore? If you keep going down the shifted goal post route, I'll probably ignore this line too, but I'll still give it a read.

The fact that all it took was one game amplifies the issue.

One game with zero variance is enough to prove that though. The fact that you were this upset enough to start a 5+ chain reply at me proves this has credence in your mind. If she did this with a coin flip or with Mahjong/Poker/Yahtzee, it would become immediately apparent that this is ridiculous enough to a point where it's an obvious joke. Why, then, is this attitude in a RomCom with comedic characters then taken seriously if you don't acknowledge somewhere that this is a realistic/reasonable outcome from someone?

Well, I am a troll, occasionally. And so are you. "Takes one to know one."

You know why this line doesn't work, right? I say "I deny being a troll". Now we have a confession that you're a troll on your end, and a wild accusation that I'm a troll also on your end, which now has less merit because you just confessed to being a troll. You're basically shooting yourself and gaining nothing in the process.

More importantly, bruh, did you actually think that was a cool line?

 

[cor3zone]

@kaitengiri
You pointed out that the test exists to prove earlier, undocumented education, as if that didn't have tests itself.
You just admitted to students taking multiple tests. Like I have stated again and again, humans are not static. Playing Ayumu again will not be the re-taking the same test.
You keep saying that, keep saying you won't respond to this line, yet you keep doing that.

Again, you misconstrue. The game matters little, I'd feel the same regardless. I'll agree it's realistic, given how you act we have a real world parallel, but not reasonable.
I'm not upset, never have been. Stop interpreting fucking colorful language as upset.😉
I merely disagree. If you don't care enough about stuff, even minor stuff, to defend your point, then I pity you.

You never said you "deny being a troll", where did you pull that from? Your ass? I merely stated you are a troll, which I should know since I am one as well. You stated I am not a troll, which I corrected.
Wasn't intended as "cool", infact I don't think I've ever been cool. I'm a huge dork, actually. I was merely stating fact. It's flattering that you even considered it, though.

 

[kaitengiri]

@cor3zone

You just admitted to students taking multiple tests

Never denied it. The whole conversation was you suggesting literally every single person ever has taken multiple tests, in a wildly off-topic and goal-post shifted analogy, when the original comment was that students aren't retested on the same exact test because that's silly.

humans are not static. Playing Ayumu again will not be the re-taking the same test.

It quite literally is, in fact, the same test. Sure, humans change over time, but they don't just change in the span of 20 minutes, especially their ranking at a 0 variance game. This just isn't how it works, friend.

Stop interpreting fucking colorful language as upset

Lol not buying that. Stop being mad, or learn that what language you use colors people's perceptions of you, otherwise it's going to cause legitimate problems for you in life.

If you don't care enough about stuff, even minor stuff, to defend your point

Your "minor" points are fallacies, or points that have already been addressed and I don't feel you properly countered. There's no need to engage them.

You never said you "deny being a troll", where did you pull that from?

That's because I said that.

I say "I deny being a troll".

You should probably give that sentence a good re-read or two, speedreader-kun. I don't think you understood it.

Anyways, considering none of this was actually addressing the main points, just nitpicky side topics, I think this debate is concluded and it's pretty obvious you realized I was right somewhere along the way and are looking for conversation. I recommend discord for that. You're free to get the last word in, but I won't be replying to it. Good day.

 

[Dorunga]

@HailBritannia_

I love this Rin girl

me too

 

[cor3zone]

@kaitengiri
Ah, my bad. I read that as describing a sequence of events, not you currently saying that. Still, you know why denying being a troll doesn't work, right? It's the standard troll-tactic.

Anyways, considering none of this was actually addressing the main points, just nitpicky side topics, I think this debate is concluded and it's pretty obvious you realized I was right somewhere along the way and are looking for conversation. I recommend discord for that. You're free to get the last word in, but I won't be replying to it. Good day.

You put it best, right back at you:

Your "minor" points are fallacies, or points that have already been addressed and I don't feel you properly countered. There's no need to engage them.

 

[leusee]

What happened in this chat lmao