Einstein Proven Right Again

"Don't post anything racist/misogynistic/pornographic, loli images, or any animated GIFs and you should be fine, haha!" The Raytownian

Moderator: xome

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:49 am

keep digging deeper
you will find numerous accounts of his first wife's part in original relativity papers
hmmm most have went ~poof~
plus almost every youtube making such referenced purged/deleted
https://www.inverse.com/article/31339-a ... ric-genius
this is an old debate
nothing new
even if you were never aware of such
Last edited by WhiteWarlock on Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:53 am

jliat wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:40 am
WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:29 am

or a schmuck

So using yiddish - i bet you are in reality a Zionist CIA agent working undercover in a Moscow centre responsible for fake news...
it rhymed with "duck"
wanker wouldn't have rhymed with "duck"
obviously "fuck" would have
are you telling me go back for editing it now?

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by jliat » Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:04 am

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:53 am
jliat wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:40 am
WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:29 am

or a schmuck

So using yiddish - i bet you are in reality a Zionist CIA agent working undercover in a Moscow centre responsible for fake news...
it rhymed with "duck"
wanker wouldn't have rhymed with "duck"
obviously "fuck" would have
are you telling me go back for editing it now?
It has to rhyme - how terribly conformist of you! :roll:


If it walks like a banker
and dresses like a banker
it's probably a banker
or a schmuck

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by jliat » Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:06 am

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:49 am
keep digging deeper
you will find numerous accounts of his first wife's part in original relativity papers
hmmm most have went ~poof~
plus almost every youtube making such referenced purged/deleted
https://www.inverse.com/article/31339-a ... ric-genius
this is an old debate
nothing new
even if you were never aware of such
I'm aware of these kind of things - McCartney being dead et al.

But you are very close to
A common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, a closed system that is unfalsifiable,

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:06 am

BTW youtube is under such an extreme "purge" recently
even looking for old simple mundane things is becoming daunting task on that platform
and or on Google anymore
so try factoring that in equation
especially things that address Zionism

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:07 am

I'm aware of these kind of things - McCartney being dead et al.

But you are very close to

A common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, a closed system that is unfalsifiable,
once again you failed plus refuse even seeing what is front of your eyes regarding the essence of the term"conspiracy theory"

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by jliat » Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:05 am

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:07 am
I'm aware of these kind of things - McCartney being dead et al.

But you are very close to

A common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, a closed system that is unfalsifiable,
once again you failed plus refuse even seeing what is front of your eyes regarding the essence of the term"conspiracy theory"
Once again you attack the person and not the argument and fail to make any counter argument.

But lets run with your implied theory "Einstein was great at stealing from the patent office, plagiarism, & having his wife write papers for him....scratch the surface and you will reveal the bad paint job. " ignoring for the moment the scratched surface has now been covered up - that his wife was the smart one who wrote the papers? Or was he as smart? Anyway he seems to have been a very intelligent kid, but maybe that's made up too. So his wife writes these papers which by all accounts (sorry not all there are those who say they are tosh - despite numerous proofs) are remarkable. "four groundbreaking papers" - well if he didn't understand them I guess he would have soon been found out. And latter after leaving his first wife he works with these theories expanding them into cosmology etc. And works with other notable scientists. If he was dumb, then he would be found out. He is not. OK maybe they were in on it too. Then we have the picture of much of modern science being a great conspiracy. Of all the labs fixing the evidence, that the A and H bombs don't work like that, or even never existed. Add to that his wife never produced any work after the divorce and no work of hers at all on these 4 subjects exists. Yes, it is possible to construct a theory accounting for all of this. But there is very little or no evidence.


And add to that some very important figures, notably Lord Rayleigh (I worked for his grandson) refused to accept SR and GR. And the conspiracy has to involve thousands of people, both in the establishment and not, in different countries with opposing political regimes.
Then the conspiracy is that generally EVERYTHING we think we know is false - a conspiracy. Which is i think what you allude to. And of course there is no evidence as that is key to the conspiracy … a giant cover up - YOU have seen through... hmmm. But cant say how?

Can I accept this as an argument, YES.

Can I accept the Russell - the universe came into existence 10 minutes ago - YES.

The computer simulation argument, YES

Brains in VATs Yes.

That more or less the current ideas are more or less correct. YES


So i make a decision. Which is more likely.

Or which is the most pragmatic.

I dont know for certain if modern science and technology is correct, aircraft might be powered by angels, but for pragmatic reasons i accept the science. I have neither the power, intelligence or ability to refute it, and IMO i've more important things to do. Now what about yourself, you use computers, electronics all products of this possible conspiracy or dream. But then bang on about it all being FAKE. Why?

So if you treat all of science like it is a fair description.
And it seems like it is
and it works
then for convenience accept it until something better comes along

Or if like Daric you think you have this 'better' put up, or shut up.

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:43 am

Image
Einstein was "promoted" as the Zionist Intellectual poster child
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Ei ... ionism.htm
up until 1948 terrorism/genocidal massacres in Palestine
when he suffered "moral crux" because of being pacifist
https://www.jns.org/history-channel-rem ... nd-israel/
that is how "The System" works
Bombings...
King David Hotel
24 massacres
Deir Yassin
Lydda
Operation Dani
Operation Hiram
Operation Yoav
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/what-was ... -1.5425826
https://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/how-zion ... -einstein/
Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013 ... lydda-1948

Image
Maric and Albert were married from 1902-1919
guess she played no part in helping him at all with his papers
Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any future Nobel Prize he might be awarded.
On March 27, 1901 Einstein wrote Marić about "bringing our work on relative motion
to a successful conclusion!".
this has long been debate what part she played or how she influenced the papers
no one has any real insight besides them anymore
and they are dead
do your own further research into Mileva Maric Einstein
https://www.inverse.com/article/31669-g ... obel-prize

also see the "Relativity Priority Dispute"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... ty_dispute
yes it's from wikipedia
dig deeper on your own time

Albert Einstein (1879 -1955), Time Magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

The most recognizable equation of all time is E = mc2.

What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was the world's leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him or thought he had done anything worth referencing!

Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable comments on special relativity theory.

"From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics - would be, above all, characterized by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of light - because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light.

No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation, he did not suspect any apparent velocity could surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking 'local time'."

(Poincaré, 1905)

Einstein plagiarized the work of several notable scientists in his 1905 papers on special relativity and E = mc2, yet the physics community has never bothered to set the record straight in the past century.

Einstein, the Plagiarist

Extracted from Nexus Magazine
Volume 11, Number 1
(December 2003-January 2004)

It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems obvious.

Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes).

This is how page 101 reads:

"'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'...is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions!!!".

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognize the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would over-reference rather than under-reference.

Wouldn't one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik.

Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einstein's claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated,

"The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature"

(Born, 1956)

He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional.

Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent.

From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye:

"Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's.

Thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it. Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation'.

Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?"

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics.

Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he'd never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré's ideas - for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without being credited.

Einstein's act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record straight.

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism:

"It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors.

Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature..."

With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool.

Here is the definition of "to plagiarize" from an unimpeachable source, Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878:

"To steal or purloin and pass off as one's own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism".

Isn't this exactly what Einstein did?

Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness. Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is not giving due credit.

Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to Lorentz's contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein's plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote,

"The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory..."

So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his 1905 paper.

Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question:

"What did Einstein know and when did he know it?" Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous.

(Moody, 2001)

The History of E = mc2

Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704).

Brown (1967) made the following statement:

"Thus gradually arose the formula E = mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900".

One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E = mc2.


Then the question becomes:

"Who did?"

Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S. Tolver Preston, who,

"formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870s, based on the formula E = mc2".

In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who deserves a lot of credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904).

What makes this timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian.

Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had access to the literature and the competence to read it.

In "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's idea'" (Carroll, 1999), we see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.

In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined - e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000 ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles - yields the equation E = mc2.

According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E = mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed.

This is similar to the careless handling of the equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999).

Occam's razor rules here.

http://web.archive.org/web/200611140502 ... stein.html
Last edited by WhiteWarlock on Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by jliat » Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:28 am

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:43 am
they were married from 1902-1919
guess she played no part in helping him at all with his papers
Which is probably true - there is no evidence.
WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:43 am
Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any future Nobel Prize he might be awarded.
You constantly twist the truth! This is simply not true!

They separated in 1914, with Marić taking the boys and returning to Zurich from Berlin. ..
When he received the Nobel Prize in 1921, he transferred the money to Marić, chiefly to support their sons; she had access to the interest. He made regular contributions to his sons' care, which he continued after emigrating to the United States

She - Marić- sat the intermediate diploma examinations in 1899, one year later than the other students in her group. Her grade average of 5.05 (scale 1–6) placed her fifth out of the six students taking the examinations that year. (Einstein had come top of the previous year's candidates with a grade average of 5.7) Marić's grade in physics was 5.5 (the same as Einstein). In 1900, she failed the final teaching diploma examinations with a grade average of 4.00, having obtained only grade 2.5 in the mathematics component (theory of functions). Einstein passed the exam in fourth place with a grade average of 4.91. Passing required a grade of 4 or higher.

[ so he got higher grades and she flunked...!]

she resat the diploma examination, but failed for the second time without improving her grade. She discontinued work on her diploma dissertation

The marriage had been strained since 1912...

They had negotiated a settlement whereby the Nobel Prize money that Einstein anticipated he would soon receive was to be placed in trust for their two boys. Einstein would receive the prize for his work, and she would receive the money. Marić could draw on the interest, but had no authority over the capital without Einstein's permission.



Einstein published more than 300 scientific papers
WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:43 am

On March 27, 1901 Einstein wrote Marić about "bringing our work on relative motion
to a successful conclusion!".
this has long been debate what part she played or how she influenced the papers
no one has any real insight besides them anymore
and they are dead
You seem to have now moved from your original "Einstein was great at stealing from the patent office, plagiarism, & having his wife write papers for him. "As above Einstein had better grades, she flunked out and published nothing as she gave up such study according to her son. And he did not give every krona to her, another one of your un truths...
WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:43 am

dig deeper on your own time
Not bothered covered this before. You are the one with the agenda. Despite the facts, you've even contradicted your original assertion that she wrote the papers. Its clear she could not have.

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:31 am

the actual original point was he was "promoted" via Zionism yet you missed that
plus
he was not "smarter" than Tesla
yet he was smart saying ugh this is getting bloody fucked up in "Israel/Palestine"
didn't say he actually gave her every krona from papers
yet he did supposedly "promise" it to her
in their divorce
Last edited by WhiteWarlock on Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by jliat » Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:41 am

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:31 am
the actual original point was he was "promoted" via Zionism yet you missed that
No i ignored it - rather like one does dog shit.
WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:31 am
plus
he was not "smarter" than Tesla
Maybe - so?


The following facts are undisputed and generally accepted as true:
Special relativity


Albert Einstein in [Ein05c] derived the Lorentz equations by using the principle of constancy of velocity of light and the relativity principle. He was the first to argue that those principles (along with certain other basic assumptions about the homogeneity and isotropy of space, usually taken for granted by theorists) are sufficient to derive the theory. See Postulates of special relativity. He said: "The introduction of a luminiferous ether will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an absolutely stationary space provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." * Einstein's Elektrodynamik paper [Ein05c] contains no formal references to other literature. It does mention, in §9, part II, that the results of the paper are in agreement with Lorentz's electrodynamics. Poincaré is not mentioned in this paper, although he is cited formally in a paper on special relativity written by Einstein the following year.
In 1905 Einstein was the first to suggest that when a material body lost energy (either radiation or heat) of amount
Δ E {\displaystyle \Delta E}
, its mass decreased by the amount
Δ E / c 2 {\displaystyle \Delta E/c^{2}}

General relativity

Before 1997, "the commonly accepted view was that David Hilbert completed the general theory of relativity at least 5 days before Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on this theory on 25 November 1915. Hilbert's article, bearing the date of submission 20 November 1915 but published only on 31 March 1916, presents a generally covariant theory of gravitation, including field equations essentially equivalent to those in Einstein's paper" (Corry, Renn and Stachel, 1997). Since the discovery of printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper of Nov 20, dated 6 Dec 1915, which show a number of differences from the finally published paper, this 'commonly accepted view' has been challenged.

Whether Hilbert ever tried to claim priority for the field equations - it seems clear that he regarded the theory of general relativity as Einstein's theory.
:rocklicker:

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:47 am

No i ignored it - rather like one does dog shit.
with that premise
obviously
we should just ignore you
:roll:
goto "Hel"
enjoy your delusion
and Zionist Police State
Last edited by WhiteWarlock on Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by jliat » Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:56 am

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:47 am
No i ignored it - rather like one does dog shit.
with that premise
obviously
we should just ignore you
:roll:
goto "Hel"
WE? You and who. But please do. But I cant promise the same, lies need to be challenged - especially ones from the CIA ;)


One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E = mc2.


Then the question becomes:

"Who did?"

Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S. Tolver Preston''
The equation E=mc^2 is in fact straight out of Newton.
Preston's thoughts were entirely based on classical, non-relativistic physics and cannot be compared with Albert Einstein's mass–energy equivalence, which is a consequence of special relativity.

The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein
Image

Sure! And above is proof it isnt.

killing raven sun
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by killing raven sun » Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:57 am

jliat wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:26 am
killing raven sun wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:11 am
jliat wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:03 am


Me thinks you just contradicted yourself there my lad. You dont believe in AI. Or is that just on odd dates in the year?
artificial intelligence is an oxymoron, AI is a bot programmed to be life-like, it regurgitates what its been told without critical thought, just like you
AI. Artificial Intelligence.

What does AI stand for? - All Acronyms Dictionary
All Acronyms dictionary. Top Definition: Artificial Intelligence.
Moreover - pure regurgitatation would not and cannot explain why AI programs can beat humans at chess and go.

Try Harder...
wat? computor data bases just like human mind, computor have acumen now, jliat say so, must be true,all evidence to the contrary must be wrong, cant just be machines simply following commands

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Einstein Proven Right Again

Post by jliat » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:12 am

killing raven sun wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:57 am

wat? computor data bases just like human mind, computor have acumen now, jliat say so, must be true,all evidence to the contrary must be wrong, cant just be machines simply following commands
Who said computer databases are like the human mind. Not I. (you compared me to a computer !) What i said was to the effect a computer can beat the best human Go player and Chess player, ergo they cant be just following given commands, otherwise those programming these commands would be at least as good as the computer.

Do you follow?

So how is it done, not at all by mimicking the mind. Yes massive databases of previous games, and brute force...

Minimax tree search

Knowledge-based systems

Monte-Carlo methods

*Machine learning

All in themselves fairly simple to program. Even I can, but i'm hopeless at chess.

*Which means they are simply following commands yes, but this creates a system unknown to those who programmed it.

You could argue that simply reading a book is simoly following commands... but maybe not.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests