Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
My mother always taught me not to argue with semantic bullshit. You made a somewhat misleading statement in your solution. I corrected you. Case closed.
In other positions you may be right, but in this particular one, Rf5 is the ONLY move that solves the puzzle. In this case I am justified in saying it is necessary.
Moving on, here's another puzzle:
White to play and mate in 3 moves
This is a very tough one, so I commend anyone who can solve it. Note that white's pawns move up.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
Well, it's necessary to force a mate in 4 but there are plenty of other winning moves, and some losing ones, too, as Goroh proved. I think it's a bit more proper to avoid overgeneralizing things, to prevent confusion amongst people who might not have your understanding of chess.
yes, there are other moves, but the puzzle asks specifically to mate in four and nothing else. Thus, the only lines that should be considered are those that achieve this goal. The rook needs to be sacrificed to solve the puzzle; it's not an overgeneralization, it's a matter of fact.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
A tricky one that took me some time to solve, but in positions like these it's important to realize the importance of stalemate. The black king has no moves, and any maneuvres by white would result in stalemate. Time to give black some moves to make while we mobilize our forces.
1. Rf5 gxf5
necessary to sacrifice the rook in order to give black some legal moves.
2. Nd4 f4
To keep the Black king stalemated. Note that the rook sac makes all this possible.
3. g6 f3
To make black cover his only escape square.
4. Nf5#
And the logic follows through. An interesting puzzle.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
over 120 replies to this topic and no progress. Choosing a name for these runs depends more on doggedness than anything else. This topic is a vortex, stay away.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
I must say I did not enjoy the DKC 101% run. No offense to the author, but it gets really annoying having the Kongs stop, enter and fail every minigame and just continue on.
They do win one minigame you know :P. I liked the 25 minute version, but I think the warp glitch skips too much. There are a lot of glitches in this game, so I'd like to maybe someday work on an "amazing run" like Genisto is doing with smb3 that can be made ready for next year's competition.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
looking at the previous submissions, I never thought a fast as possible smw timeattack could be so entertaining. One small step for Mario and one giant leap for Mariokind.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
I hope this will be my last post in this topic, so I will summarize my thoughts. To me, Tool-assisted speedrun is a vague term that sounds almost like an apology. The main advantage it has over timeattack is that it may avoid ambiguity. Yet, as I have tried to demonstrate, timeattack can be a sufficient word if used in the proper context.
I will say this in addition: it seems to me that fear can play a part in all this; fear of getting flamed for unintentionally "fooling" somebody into thinking these runs are "real." It's almost as if the term tool-assisted speedrun is sometimes being used as a flame shield. It's time to stand up and give these runs a proper name, one that captures their essense as art and not as a mechanical process. It's time take pride and stop hiding behind long hyphenated nonsense words.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
Show me one example of 2 words where removing the space changes the definition into exactly what people don't want the first term to be confused with.
altogether and all together.
People do use the non-save state definition of time attack as a noun.
it cannot be used in the same contexts, which was my point. "You should try making a timeattack of this game" and "You should try playing this game in time attack" refer to two different meanings of the word and are not interchangeable.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
In science and other types of facts, yes. No matter how many people think the world poofed into existence 6000 years ago, there would still be huge amounts of evidence for million-year evolution.
But languages are different. Words actually have no meaning other than what people assign to them. The word gay is an excellent (if tired) example. A hundred years ago everyone would have agreed that gay meant happy or glad. If I remember correctly Winnie the Pooh is described as walking gayly (spelling?) down the road in one of the books.
If you ask people now everyone would agree it means homosexual. So that's what it means. Happy isn't the "real" meaning of the word. Words have no real meaning other than the one currently agreed upon.
I agree, however, when gay is used as a noun, it can only mean one thing; if it is used as an adjective, it can vary depending on the context. This is similar to the distinction between time attack and timeattack. To say morimoto's smb3 run is a timeattack does not mean that he played it in time attack mode. I don't believe people have much to worry about when it comes to the two terms conflating.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
What are you talking about? The 99.9% thing was about how everyone except for Arc would consider timeattack and time attack to be the same thing. If I make that claim, and then I go around to different forums and find out that everyone thinks they are the same thing, then yes, I am right!
it wouldn't prove the 99.9% because a few forum users on SDA and TG aren't representative of the entire population. This is the problem with "everyone knows" statements. If you want an accurate population parameter, you'd have to make that topic on places like this forum as well where people do know the difference, not just places where you believe people will be confused by the term. In that case, the statistic will drop lower than 99.9%.
Suppose Morimoto went around to hundreds of different forums after everyone thought the vid was legit and said "It's not my fault you were all fooled! I labeled it as a time attack! Everyone knows that implies that save states were used!" "How are we supposed to know that?" "Because it says it on Arc's site of course! Is it my problem if my assumption is wrong that everyone has read Arc's site???"
You're giving an example where purposely made Morimoto go around making a series of fallacious statements and included the word timeattack in there. I don't see how this helps your point. You should remember that Arc's site came after Morimoto's run, so his term is not as old those used by Doom communities and others.
It's also a matter of context; there are many words that have different meanings depending on the context; for instance, the statement "time flies" can mean two different things. The statement "I made a timeattack" is different than "I played a game in time attack mode". This is an important thing to keep in mind. I'm not saying that this term should replace another, I'm saying that I find it an acceptable one to use.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
but again, you're appealing to popularity. If I think 1+1=14 and post it on three forums and get people to agree with me, it doesn't make me right. Since the videos and the sites containing the runs are now almost flooded with disclaimers, I find the use of different terms to label them at least somewhat justifiable.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
if a poll is made, tool-assisted speedruns might win. Go back a year though, and I'm sure timeattack would have greater chances. Logically speaking, an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Since most people prefer X, it doesn't make X true. I don't like the whole 99.9% idea either. Where does this number come from? Was calculated statistically with a large sample size? Is it representative? These terms are just intangible constructs, fighting vitriolic arguments over them seems somewhat unavailing.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
There are problems with every term used so far. Since the word tool is not very specific, people might wonder whether video editing was used since that can be a tool. People who've never used an emulator are probably wondering the heck a savestate is, and those who see the word "time attack" are probably wondering whether this game was played in some sort of time attack mode. I sometimes call them RRR, for repeated recording run, but there may be people who don't like that either. So let's pick one and move on.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 706
I tried correcting it before, but the person just changed it back. The problem is, the origins of the claims are so obscure that they are hard to disprove. How do I know the claim is false? I know the person who wrote it, and by now there are so many people who have believed the lie that it's hard to convince them. The dozens of other sites that just copy material straight out of wikipedia aren't helping. I refuse to change it partially because I find the whole thing humorous. Everytime at a tournament that I hear "hey, did you know that Steinitz was really a tapdancer?" just makes me laugh on the inside. :P
White to play and mate in 3 moves
This is a very tough one, so I commend anyone who can solve it. Note that white's pawns move up.