Chess-Opening Problem - Revision history

Aardvark: Text replacement - "|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein↵|username=EricRWeinstein" to "|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein |username=ericweinstein"

2026-05-05T22:39:23Z

Text replacement - "|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein↵|username=EricRWeinstein" to "|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein |username=ericweinstein"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 5 May 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624054155349221377		\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624054155349221377
	\|name=Eric Weinstein		\|name=Eric Weinstein
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/~~EricRWeinstein~~		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
	\|username=~~EricRWeinstein~~		\|username=ericweinstein
	\|content=And if you’re curious as to what the effect is on me, I’d say that [[Chess-Opening Problem\|these moves are still part of the well worn chess opening phase of the debate I’d be eager to skip]].		\|content=And if you’re curious as to what the effect is on me, I’d say that [[Chess-Opening Problem\|these moves are still part of the well worn chess opening phase of the debate I’d be eager to skip]].

Line 20:		Line 20:
	\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624048339984568323		\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624048339984568323
	\|name=Eric Weinstein		\|name=Eric Weinstein
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/~~EricRWeinstein~~		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
	\|username=~~EricRWeinstein~~		\|username=ericweinstein
	\|content=To those exposed to my view that fundamental physical theory is in a 50 year stagnation, may I recommend this counter argument thread put forward by @nu_phases? This is what constructive academic debate & critique looks like, advancing our understanding of the chasm of thought.		\|content=To those exposed to my view that fundamental physical theory is in a 50 year stagnation, may I recommend this counter argument thread put forward by @nu_phases? This is what constructive academic debate & critique looks like, advancing our understanding of the chasm of thought.
	\|quote=		\|quote=
Line 45:		Line 45:
	\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624049395938299904		\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624049395938299904
	\|name=Eric Weinstein		\|name=Eric Weinstein
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/~~EricRWeinstein~~		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
	\|username=~~EricRWeinstein~~		\|username=ericweinstein
	\|content=To those interested in these topics, I also recommend following @martinmbauer and @nu_phases. Both accounts are run by people trying to do real physics from what I have read of their work. I may disagree with them at times, but I’m open to their arguments changing my perspective.		\|content=To those interested in these topics, I also recommend following @martinmbauer and @nu_phases. Both accounts are run by people trying to do real physics from what I have read of their work. I may disagree with them at times, but I’m open to their arguments changing my perspective.
	\|timestamp=2:15 PM · Feb 10, 2023		\|timestamp=2:15 PM · Feb 10, 2023

Pyrope at 07:04, 18 December 2025

2025-12-18T07:04:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:04, 18 December 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics.		A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics.


			{{Tweet
			\|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
			\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624054155349221377
			\|name=Eric Weinstein
			\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
			\|username=EricRWeinstein
			\|content=And if you’re curious as to what the effect is on me, I’d say that [[Chess-Opening Problem\|these moves are still part of the well worn chess opening phase of the debate I’d be eager to skip]].

			So far, I’m saying “X is a disaster.” and Dan says “X’ is fine.” You can guess the next 2-3 moves from that.
			\|thread=
			{{Tweet
			\|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
			\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624048339984568323
			\|name=Eric Weinstein
			\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
			\|username=EricRWeinstein
			\|content=To those exposed to my view that fundamental physical theory is in a 50 year stagnation, may I recommend this counter argument thread put forward by @nu_phases? This is what constructive academic debate & critique looks like, advancing our understanding of the chasm of thought.
			\|quote=
			{{Tweet
			\|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
			\|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528
			\|name=Daniel Green
			\|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
			\|username=nu_phases
			\|content=I am trying an experiment.

			Every day in December, I will post 1 result from the past 40 years (ie 1983-present) that fundamentally changed my corner of (fundamental) physics

			Here are my rules</br>
			- Nothing already earning a Nobel prize</br>
			- Not a ranking, just my preferences
			\|timestamp=3:02 PM · Dec 1, 2022
			}}
			\|timestamp=2:11 PM · Feb 10, 2023
			}}
			{{Tweet
			\|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
			\|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1624049395938299904
			\|name=Eric Weinstein
			\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
			\|username=EricRWeinstein
			\|content=To those interested in these topics, I also recommend following @martinmbauer and @nu_phases. Both accounts are run by people trying to do real physics from what I have read of their work. I may disagree with them at times, but I’m open to their arguments changing my perspective.
			\|timestamp=2:15 PM · Feb 10, 2023
			}}
			\|timestamp=2:34 PM · Feb 10, 2023
			}}

	== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==		== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==

Aardvark at 22:05, 14 May 2023

2023-05-14T22:05:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, 14 May 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{stub}}~~
	There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position.		There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position.

Line 12:		Line 11:
	== See Also ==		== See Also ==
	* [[Snap to Grid Intellectualism]]		* [[Snap to Grid Intellectualism]]

			{{stub}}

	[[Category:Ericisms]]		[[Category:Ericisms]]
	[[Category:Discourse]]		[[Category:Discourse]]

Pyrope at 16:16, 15 September 2021

2021-09-15T16:16:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 15 September 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]		* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]
	* [[Socialism vs. Capitalism Debate]]		* [[Socialism vs. Capitalism Debate]]

			== See Also ==
			* [[Snap to Grid Intellectualism]]

	[[Category:Ericisms]]		[[Category:Ericisms]]
	[[Category:Discourse]]		[[Category:Discourse]]

Pyrope at 21:34, 10 September 2021

2021-09-10T21:34:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 10 September 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:
	== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==		== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==
	* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]		* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]
			* [[Socialism vs. Capitalism Debate]]

			[[Category:Ericisms]]
	[[Category:Discourse]]		[[Category:Discourse]]

Aardvark at 00:00, 14 February 2021

2021-02-14T00:00:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:00, 14 February 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:
	== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==		== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==
	* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]		* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]
			[[Category:Discourse]]

Aardvark at 19:14, 23 October 2020

2020-10-23T19:14:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 23 October 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{stub}}
	There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position.		There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position.

Line 7:		Line 8:
	== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==		== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==
	* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]		* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]


	~~{{stub}}~~

BeefSandwich27 at 23:41, 13 March 2020

2020-03-13T23:41:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:41, 13 March 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:

	A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics.		A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics.

			== Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved ==
			* [[Free Will vs. Determinism Debate]]


	{{stub}}		{{stub}}

Argyris at 17:09, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T17:09:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 29 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Stopping~~ from ~~repeating old~~ and ~~predictable~~ arguments		There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position.

			Many conversations in our public discourse are similar. There are often two sides with known positions and arguments. Discussions get bogged down by rehashing well worn intellectual paths without making any sort of progress.

			A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics.


	{{stub}}		{{stub}}

BeefSandwich27 at 18:00, 22 February 2020

2020-02-22T18:00:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 22 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Stopping from ~~Repeating Old Arguments~~		Stopping from repeating old and predictable arguments


	{{stub}}		{{stub}}