User talk:LithiumFlash

Chess
This doesn't really fit at the article, and in any case is it "folk knowledge", which is hard to find a reference for. But I can explain what the situation is with Chess. Let's say the usual game of chess is called C. We can make a new game, C1, which is played the same, except that anything other than a win for player 1 is considered a win for player 2. So although C can have stalemates or other complications, C1 cannot. Now, by the usual results about games without ties, one player or the other has a winning strategy in C1.

Similarly, we can make a third game C2 which is played just like C, except that anything other than an outright win by player 2 is considered a win for player 1. Again, one of the two players has a winning strategy in C2.

Now, a winning strategy for player 1 in C1 is also a winning strategy for player 1 in C, and a winning strategy for player 2 in C2 is also a winning strategy for player 2 in C. So there are three options:


 * 1) Player 1 has a winning strategy in C1, and so Player 1 has a winning strategy in Chess
 * 2) Player 2 has a winning strategy in C2, and so Player 2 has a winning strategy in Chess
 * 3) Neither of the above bullets hold. This means that player 2 has a winning strategy in C1 and player 1 has a winning strategy in C2. This means that both players can force the game to go to a stalemate - neither player can force themselves to win by skilled play.

So that is the situation with Chess being determined. The same thing applied to any game with ties: either one player can force a win, or both players can force a tie. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Because Chess (real world) has ties, it does not fit into the framework of Determinacy, so can't say that it "is determined" or "is not determined" in that sense - the definition there does not apply, so we can't say anything there. This is why I wanted to explain here on your talk page what the more general situation is with chess. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the article does not "dance around" the issue, it is completely specific: "If such a game is modified so that a particular player wins under any condition where the game would have been called a draw, then it is always determined.". There is nothing to say beyond that very concrete statement. I did edit the introduction this morning, but you might have missed it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

PNG to SVG
Hello!, i need your assistance for this fairy chess piece.

I need help to convert .png to .svg

The piece is called a "Centaur"



Mann + Knight compound

Sunny3113 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sunny3113, Unfortunately I don't have any software to make .svg images. You can try the link (below) which is a free graphics editor that you can use to make .svg images, or convert other images to .svg.
 * (http://pixlr.com/editor/)
 * I tried it once, but the result weren't perfect. You can "cut-out" white areas to make them transparent, but if it is not pure white the result is not good. I hope you can make it work.LithiumFlash (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Infinite chess
Hi, I'm CaroleHenson. LithiumFlash, thanks for creating Infinite chess!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It seems as if the article has some Original research - basically where the content seems to be written based upon the writer's knowledge or opinions vs. from secondary sources. Do you have sources for the uncited content?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Huygens (chess piece) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Huygens (chess piece) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Huygens (chess piece) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—Lowellian (reply) 16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lowellian. I'll leave some comments at the discussion page tomorrow. Thanks for the notice.—LithiumFlash (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your consistent removing of all red links in articles
FYI, WP:Red link guideline: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic." --IHTS (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank IHTS. There can also be too many red links sometimes (see Template:Cleanup red links) and it might be better to just get rid of them rather than adding a tag to the article. But I'll be careful about deleting red links. If I ever delete one, and you don't agree with it, just add it back. It's not too important to me. Thanks.—LithiumFlash (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Chess.com plastering
What you're doing has been extremely irritating. (Do you intend to keep it up? Chess.com is not a source of WP info for anything, except Chess.com itself, and also too if a noted expert provided some material there. You've been liberally adding Chess.com links to articles continually, please stop now.) --IHTS (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Reversions at Western Carolina University
I take great exception to the edit summaries you used when you reverted two of my edits at Western Carolina University. You're certainly welcome to disagree with my edits and to revert them but your edit summaries says that I did not "justify" my edits when I left very explicit edit summaries doing just that. In any case, I look forward to you participating in the discussions in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and a good place to seek consensus.—LithiumFlash (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch!
Thanks for catching my edit that Deepmind found the Stockfish hashsize optimal; I believe I misread the ambiguous statement "Stockfish and Elmo played at their strongest skill level using 64 threads and a hash size of 1GB" in the preprint. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rolf H Nelson, no problem. I was wondering if some of the authors of AlphaZero were adding non-documented information to the article. I think it's a fairly good article now. I also just added AlphaZero to List of chess software.—LithiumFlash (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.You're right at the limit of WP:3rr Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Galobtter Thank you. I agree and am using the Talk page to seek consensus. In general, editors should not make wholesale deletions of relevant and properly referenced material without consensus at the Talk page.—LithiumFlash (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a already a consensus that stack exchange is not a reliable source. And the onus is on the person adding, and changing long-standing content, not the person removing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Galobtter, Well, please allow time for editors to express their views (more than just a few hours). Also, if this one source is judged as unnecessary then that is fine. But removing one reference from a collection of references by itself is not a basis for removing essential text from the article. Supplementing, editing, copy-editing are fine. But there is no basis for wholesale deletions of properly referenced material. Thanks for your attention.—LithiumFlash (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read above. This has been discussed before. And it was discussed WP:RSN where it was determined that no, stackexchange is not a reliable source. also said that the other sources don't support text. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you think you're right, doesn't mean you should repeatedly revert. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just reiterate that more reverts will go past the bright-line rule of WP:3RR Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Galobtter And likewise, that should apply to all editors. If it's ok with you, concerning whether Black should be mentioned as a possible winner of perfect play (as it is in Solving chess), lets discuss that at the Talk page of First-move advantage in chess. Then other editors can benefit from the discussion. I'll check and help to seek a consensus there, and eventually support updates to the article.—LithiumFlash (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)