explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1112: Think Logically

2012-09-25T20:19:11Z

141.248.3.1:

Cueball is clearly a chess novice as demonstrated by the comic (at the very least he knows what the goal of the game is and how the pieces move), however he lacks higher knowledge of the game (which is gained through education) and is very inexperienced (experience is obviously gained by playing the game regularly). Given his non-expert position he attempts to deliver well-meaning advice as best he can (in this case through "thinking logically"), however the player receiving the advise (a clearly more knowledgeable and experienced player) immediately realises how utterly useless that advise is.
Cueball approached the situation by "thinking logically", but his logic was flawed, possibly due to his lack of knowledge. Just because the goal of chess is to deliver checkmate does not necessarily mean that every move must be pushing a piece closer to the opponent's king. The best thing to do would be to first research and study the abundance of chess knowledge out there, practice it and then one can come up with tactics and strategies for every possible position (even if those aren't perfect). Chess is so complex that even if we wished to arrive at the absolute logical move for every position, this would be beyond us most of the time, it is just too complex. Not even computers know the perfect move for every position, although they do come up with great moves through the use of complex algorithms.
Note: I thought the explanation given in the "Explanation" section above had some merit (it also explains some things I didn't include), and that is why I did not modify it and instead chose to provide mine here. Let me know what you thought, together we can explain everything.--[[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 13:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

:Feel free to add your explanation to the actual page if you think it's lacking in information. Wikis are meritocracies, and anyone is welcome to voice their opinions. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 13:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

:A good explanation. My takeaway was more about Dunning Kruger, and chess just happened too be a convenient backdrop. The expert proceeds to {{w|pwn}} the {{w|know-it-all}}... and even having been pwned, the braggart can't find the lesson in the defeat. But as with Randall's work, YMMV. (Or to paraphrase {{w|Euell Gibbons}}: "ever analyze an xkcd? Many interpretations are possible.") -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

::I think your explanation is the best one, you managed to find the essence of the situation. I can very easily see what you explained happening in the comic.--[[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 00:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick point on the explanation. Chess is not a perfectly balanced game due to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess first move advantage] enjoyed by white. This advantage is very small, however, and the pieces themselves are well balanced. [[User:Heyart|Heyart]] ([[User talk:Heyart|talk]]) 13:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

::I found Cueball's demeanor in this comic to be very remeniscent of {{w|Sheldon Cooper}} of ''The Big Bang Theory'' in that he thinks he knows better than everyone even though chess has been around forever. Also, there was a specific episode of ''TBBT'' in which Cooper invents three-player chess including several new pieces. Cooper does not, however, do so considering the traditional rules of chess to be flawed (other than not allowed a third player). The characters do consider chess to be too easy, however, and often play ''Star Trek'''s three-dimensional chess. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I see this comic, as so many comics before it, to be a description of nerd-dominance. The author seeks to entice the reader into inquiring about his own ill-thought out rules for chess. Do not inquire.

Is the first character really wearing a "hat"? To me, it looks like a headband, similar to the one worn by {{w|Spock}} in the movie {{w|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home}}. This would give another meaning to "Think logically"... --[[Special:Contributions/85.159.196.16|85.159.196.16]] 11:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not a headband -- there's hair below the brim but not above it. What you are seeing is a subtle clue that the chess expert is a Canadian, in that he is wearing what we call a toque, known in America as a stocking cap. https://www.google.ca/search?q=toque&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=JNV&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MaFhUKmkEObRyAH9xoCACg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=960&bih=544 [[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 12:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

:Your point about the hair is interesting; however, a Vulcan is much better at explaining logic than any earthling... Canadians included!
:--[[Special:Contributions/85.159.196.16|85.159.196.16]] 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Another point I want to bring up is that it's generally not really a good idea to share your own strategy with your opponents (or potential opponents). I once participated in a Chess tournament, and before it began I encountered this guy who was bragging about his strategy, how he likes to move only his pawns at the beginning and form a sort of wall into which his opponents will invariably run their pieces and, in his words, "kill themselves." Of course, it just so happened that the first game I played in was against this same guy. And so I knew what he was trying to do, and I ended up destroying him. Granted, Cueball's "strategy" in this comic has very little to do with actual established Chess practices, but it's a similar idea. [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 18:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1095: Crazy Straws

2012-08-22T15:07:21Z

141.248.3.1:

Compare [[915:_Connoisseur|xkcd.com/915]]. [[User:Arlo James Barnes|Arlo James Barnes]] ([[User talk:Arlo James Barnes|talk]]) 10:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

*"Subcultures" is misspelled in the comic. Perhaps Randall will fix it and reupload? [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
**Randall has corrected the mistake, but the image on this page is still the old one. Would we want to keep both versions of the image in the interest of completeness? [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 00:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

* Have to admit, this one went a bit over my head. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

*Fractals not only have an unlimited level of detail; they are (most times) self-similar in the sense that you'll find the same pattern on every level of detail. Just like finding the equivalent of finding the "Paris hilton of the plastic straw subcultures' hobbyists' splinter group." [[User:BKA|BKA]] ([[User talk:BKA|talk]]) 09:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

*I think we should get the corrected comic, but note that it was originally misspelled in the explanation. Tebow Time, Twice a Day. 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC) ([[User talk:jjhuddle|talk]])

*It's a mistake to think the every-pickier level of detail is a flaw in these interest subcultures. Smaller and smaller levels of study are what flesh out our knowledge of the world. And myriad small subgroups of shared interests allow many people to achieve excellence and status, not just in their minds but in an (admittedly small) range of reality. Examples: the people who maintain and improve the Kennedy line of Boston Terriers; people whose specialty is tooth wear in prehuman hominids; people who parse xkcd comics.
** This comment was mine, attribution corrected.[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 12:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

* I don't think that the comic means it as a flaw, I think it's a just a (humourous) observation, not a negative critisism.

* Agreed, and it even goes on here (just drop in on the community portal, to see tempests in a tea pot such as whether he's [[Cueball]] or [[Rob]]...) I couldn't help but think that RM poked his head in on this site and came up with this comic as a response. (Of course, that would be greatly overestimating our importance in the grand scheme of things, but we are all entitled to our little fantasies of grandeur, no?) Ah, well... it seemed perfect timing nonetheless. '''By the way, folks: please sign your posts.''' Four tildes, a la <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, is all it takes... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

* I don't think the fractal analogy holds because human subcultures cannot be nested infinitely deep. At some point, subcultures will come down to individual humans, who aren't also (infinitely deep) subcultures. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.155.184|70.31.155.184]] 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
** Randall is using the term hyperbolically — his point is that subcultures have ludicrous amounts of detail, not necessarily infinite. [[Special:Contributions/108.233.253.211|108.233.253.211]] 18:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Half of me disagrees with you, with the other half in an argument with itself over from which crazy straw will Paris Hilton look best drinking. [[Special:Contributions/146.186.149.47|146.186.149.47]] 18:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
**** Still, even people so crazy they are kept in straitjacket all the time can have only several dozens of personalities ... there's not enough space in brain for infinite. -- [[Special:Contributions/89.177.52.2|89.177.52.2]] 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
** I still believe Randall's point was not the infinite detail, but self-similarity. Regardless on whether you look at something very popular or a niche - you'll always find exactly the same social structures. [[User:BKA|BKA]] ([[User talk:BKA|talk]]) 06:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
** Funny, I was just reading the article http://www.economist.com/node/21560559 -- And while they're not infinite, there's a damn lot of (microbial) subcultures within a human too!

* Isn't there any reference to the [http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html Open Letter to Hobbyists] and the famous hacker Eric Raymond?
** I keep coming back to this page to see who "Eric" is. I don't think it's Eric Raymond (no apparent connection, from what I can see). Any insights? [[User:Zelmo|Zelmo]] ([[User talk:Zelmo|talk]]) 03:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
*** "Eric" isn't an uncommon name, and in fact, there's a well documented "[http://www.catb.org/esr/ecsl/ Eric Conspiracy]" out there. While ESR is a prominent Eric, I see nothing to tie the Eric in this comic to ESR specifically. For that matter, I'd be hard pressed to see a reference to Bill Gate's "Open Letter to Hobbyists", either. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 17:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
*** I wonder if the comic is making an oblique reference to String theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. There was (and still is, in some places) a lot of hostility between the two camps, most easily visible in the articles and comments of various physics blogs. This would kind of tie in with the 'fractal' comment, since you see this same division into strings (or wiggly crazy straws) and loops - it's a pattern that repeats when you look at physics groups or crazy straw groups. In that case, the Eric would be "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde Erik Verlinde]". I know it's a bit of a stretch, but what do you think? [[User:Slouchingtb|Slouchingtb]] ([[User talk:Slouchingtb|talk]]) 01:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

109: Spoiler Alert

2012-08-14T20:58:08Z

141.248.3.1:

{{comic
| number = 109
| date = May 31, 2006
| title = Spoiler Alert
| image = Spoiler_Alert.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = 'And then it turns out they're both Tyler Durden.'
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, Snape is depicted knocking Trinity off a cliff with a wooden sled called Rosebud.

Severus Snape is a character from J.K. Rowling's ''Harry Potter'' series of books.

Trinity is a character from ''the Matrix'' trilogy of movies.

Rosebud is from the 1941 film ''Citizen Kane''.

From the title text, Tyler Durden is a character from the novel and movie ''Fight Club''.

All four references share the common ground that they are all involved in significant events or ideas in their respective movies that have been often spoiled by careless viewers for those who have not yet seen the movies. Here the relevant events are mashed together into one and spoiled in one go. Ironically, the event depicted in the comic did not actually occur in any movie.

{{Comic discussion}}

104

2012-08-13T15:56:36Z

141.248.3.1: Redirected page to 104: Find You

#REDIRECT [[104: Find_You]]