- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I’ll never forget when I transitioned from an internship to a full hire and the initial offer was lower than the pay range on the posting. Funny how they took the ranges off all future postings after I pointed that out.
Is it even possible to lose without a king?
This is why the revolution will never die.
Some would say you’ve lost before you even began.
But there is an interesting chess variant called horde where Black must capture all of White’s pieces to win.
You can stalemate it if you have no valid moves, or lose via time. I think you can technically lose to the repeated moves rule too? But then again that’s applying tournament rules to this scenario so…
so the king just has to expend a few horses and the rest of us will block each other and never reach him.
it’s hopeless. got it.
No. Your pawn game must be weak as fuck if that’s how you read this board.
Black can only take eight pawns before losing all their knights. After that it’s just a matter of laddering white pawns until they queen up
you guys alllll think that the only king on the board, protected by knights all around, is going to play by your poor people chess rules? well guess what, Not pictured all around the pawns… are McDonald’s, Starbucks, NASCAR, pop music stars, snipers, cameras, and a gun to all those pawns family members.
where is your god now
That is scenario 1, where the single pawn can’t see all the other pawns, blinded by all the frivolous stuff.
Scenario 2 is checkmate in one move, take a horse with any pawn and it’s smothered mate - the king dies, suffocated by the sycophants around him that are powerless to defend him from the pawn avalanche.
A really good metaphor.
but that will allow some of the pawns to reach the end and transition, gaining superpowers
Unfortunately modern day some of the pawns are not so secretly working for the black team (class collaborationist union management) and the judge (government) is ready to interfere to smack down the pawns if they start winning.
A great explanation of why the rugged individual mythology is perpetuated by the knights.
I’m all for self-reliance, but only if it’s realistic.
If your opponent in a negotiation is not self-reliant, then you shouldn’t be either.
Humanity wouldn’t be where it is without MUTUAL AID. There is no such thing as rugged individualism in nature, it’s only in capitalism.
Okay, but now I want to see what the end state looks like for optimal (or near-optimal) play between both participants in this fucked-up chess variant.
It’s pretty straight forward I think. Each side loses one piece every round. If white somehow runs out of pawns that can check the black king, or if the black king manages to get behind the pawns, white can still promote some of them and win.
Wouldn’t promoted pawns join the other side? Like a manager getting a payrise
What? In the bottom board, assuming white to move, any capture is a checkmate - black king cannot escape check, and cannot capture because the pawn is supported.White wins in 1 move.How?
The knights can defend at least two attacks.
I’m dumb. Thank you for correcting me.
Ah, yeah, I guess I was forgetting about promoting. Agreed that white definitely wins then.
It’s pretty clearly a win for white, unless black forces a stalemate. Those knights won’t last and that’s a fuckton of pawns, even ignoring promotion.
It would be tricksy trying to get checkmate without promoting any, but one or two promotions is all it would take to make it a sinch.
It would be tricksy trying to get checkmate without promoting any
So what you’re saying is, the strategy of e.g. Occupy Wall Street, avoiding creating leaders, made it less effective than it could’ve been.
Not sure, I was just analyzing the chess board.
Although I will say that decentralized movements may tend to shoot themselves in the foot by failing to coalesce around any solid leadership.
There’s good ways to do leadership and bad ways to do leadership. A movement can be grassroots and decentralized while still having leaders.
They forgot “mmmmm chezburger” in the second frame
The best raise is another company,
… if you can find one hiring.
Do they still become Queens when they make it to the other side?
Yes, making it to the other side is just leaving the egg
Male cleric, furry and mech are also options for grown-up pawns. Lots of diversity for a game this old.
Unions make you trans
See, just more leftist agenda
/s
*if they make it to the other side
What I’ve learned is that some of us are gonna die, there’s no way around it.
Good news is I’m an idiot and managed to do it losing two pawns.
I let the engine fully analyze each move according to whatever the default settings are, and got:
[Variant "Horde"] [FEN "2nnn3/2nkn3/2nnn3/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP w - - 0 1"] 1. h6 N6f7 2. h7 Nf8 3. bxc6+ Nexc6 4. g6 Nh8 5. dxc6+ Nxc6 6. d5 Nxa5 7. bxa5 Nhxg6 8. fxg6 Nxg6 9. d4 Nh8 10. f5 Ke7 11. g5 Kf7 12. d6 Ne7 13. h5 Nc6 14. h6 Ne7 15. d7 Nc6 16. g6+ Kf8 17. a6 Nd8 18. dxe8=R+ Nxe8 19. a7 Ke7 20. g7 Kd7 21. gxh8=Q Nc7 22. Qg7+ Kc8 23. h8=Q Kb7 24. Qxd8 Kxa7 25. Qgxc7+ Ka6 26. Qdc8#
Keep in mind this is anecdotal but at the same time I don’t think it’s unique.
I understand the value of unions and I think the world is better off with them than without them.
But
Having worked in them as a teen I will say the union leadership is to not be trusted as much as the business owners. Birds of a feather. The problem is power and hierarchies.
What I also did not appreciate as a union member was being told by people who have been there longer “stop working so hard the quotas will go up and we will be expected to make more” like wtf?
I love unions in theory. In practice they’re just as corrupt because they don’t address the underlying problem if anything they put lipstick on the underlying problem.
“stop working so hard the quotas will go up and we will be expected to make more”
They were right.
The problem is that the workers have allowed themselves to be attached to the labor, and be responsible for the output, without having any connection to the benefit of the additional output. If the labor force creates more product, and the company earns more as a result, the workers should also earn more as a result, but they don’t. They just work harder for the same pay, so those at the top benefit by their increased labor.
Management should incentivize increased output. Otherwise, why bother?
That’s not how output is increased in a substantial manner though. Incentives can marginally increase productivity but that’s a one-time boost. Sustained substantial productivity growth is achieved via technology. E.g. calculate using computers instead of by hand. Use power tools instead of manual tools. That’s the kind of changes that have increased labour productivity in the US by over 400% since the 50s. The capitalist system never pays workers what they poduce. Anyone is only ever hired if they’ll produce more than they receive in wage.
That is why you vote and get involved.in your union. same as governments, dont just pay your due and hope for the best.
They are corrupt and don’t address the problem because much of the union leadership are reactionaries opposed to people having real power. Unions used to literally fight the police and national guard, radical unions have been dismantled and co-opted continually for the last century. It’s not just about holding power, it’s about the underlying worldview of the groups in power as well, and any unions that meaningfully challenged the normal capitalist status quo have been crushed by the US security apparatus.
I can WILL has cheezburger.
Surround them, and bring baseball bats. It’s time for some old-fashioned Unionizing.
