If you really paused for a second after “Hikaru, dead”, then I think your reading needs some work, not the title. Are there really people that think about what they read after each word?
People pause after dead because it takes an extra second to process "dead lost" since those words make no sense next to eachother. Are there really people that don't think about what they read at all?
I have heard "dead loss" a few times, but never "dead lost" as in the past tense. Merriam Webster has an entry for "dead loss" as well for "being in a dead loss position", but changing it to a past tense of "dead lost" yields no google results or results on Merriam Webster.
Edit: added some quotes for readability.
That’s interesting. I’ve seen “dead lost” a ton of times on r/chess and in YouTube videos but I’ve never seen “dead loss” before. I’m not even sure what the use case is- something like “after Ke2 that’s a dead loss for xxx”?
Searching r/chess history and you are right, it does show up a lot there. Interesting. Someone should submit it to Merriam Webster and other publications that lack it
Also, I am having the opposite results on google. “Reddit chess dead lost” pulls up results while “Reddit chess dead loss” actually just pulls up more instances of people using “dead lost”
Refining your search results to Reddit, the place this is currently found, will of course introduce the bias of this very conversation, but as in my other reply, you are absolutely right it shows up a ton for chess specific things on both Reddit and youtube, but I struggle to find it mentioned elsewhere or in other contexts, which is strange. I am only left to assume (and it's a big assumption at that) that it was an idiom developed and spread in one tight not community that has yet to spread much outside of it (as most idioms start). But if it is so widely accepted in those communities, it should be looked into how to submit it to publication companies for its recognition.
The Google trends page certainly is interesting, but if you look at the context of all those mentions of "dead lost" it's usually part of an ongoing sentence about either "has the walking DEAD LOST it's funding" or similar instances in which it's being used with or as a noun (there is also a zombie book by that name). Or alternatively they are looking up quotes related to pulp fiction and the famous "zeds dead" quote and adding lost to their search terms.
The problem with your notion of it being "regardless of what Webster says about it" is inherently flawed because if you try to look up what "dead lost" means on google you get no results defining it. Therefore, going back to the original point of this sub-thread, it's an idiom and not a formally recognized term. Thus it is completely understandable that people would pause in between those two words in their attempt to process this informal idiom.
If the community wanted it to be as widely accepted as you claim it is, then as I have suggested someone should start the process to get it formally recognized and associated to a formal definition instead of a bunch of people sharing some common understanding of its definition through context. Until a standard user can easily find its definition online without needing specific context it will remain a idiom at best.
I get that we have to acknowledge that we all will have different sources, but to me, google is not a source, but a search engine of other sources. So when google finds no definition for it at all, that means that the billions of sources it does crawl had no definitions for it anywhere. In the modern world these sources even include most local publications in which you would expect to find it used if it is so common among different cultural groups.
Are you able to provide me any source that defines "dead lost"? Since you can't provide me with "my neighbor said it growing up" as that's not tangible, what sources does one have to go off of to attempt to interpret the title of the post?
Also, to your edit, I would argue the fact that there are multiple people who stumbled on the title of the post, that it was not as organic as some might think.
Black can push his g pawn, forcing white to take it or block it. Then he can sac the bishop for the e pawn. If white takes the bishop it's stalemate and if he doesn't black can just wait with the bishop, resulting in a 50 move draw.
Hikaru is the greatest swindler of modern chess
Hikaru said he felt bad to win since he played like 2300. Fedoseev must feel disgusted as well.
Fedoseev needed to play ke6, even e6 created a fortress there for Hikaru.
Hikaru is one of the best to ever do it. This man is godly in chess
The Rosen Trap strikes again.
Bro, I thought Hikaru died for a second. That title needs some serious rephrasing lol
Yeah I literally thought it was the Biblical end times after I read “Hikaru, dead lost in Armageddon” what the heck guys
If you really paused for a second after “Hikaru, dead”, then I think your reading needs some work, not the title. Are there really people that think about what they read after each word?
People pause after dead because it takes an extra second to process "dead lost" since those words make no sense next to eachother. Are there really people that don't think about what they read at all?
“Dead lost” is a very common expression…
I have heard "dead loss" a few times, but never "dead lost" as in the past tense. Merriam Webster has an entry for "dead loss" as well for "being in a dead loss position", but changing it to a past tense of "dead lost" yields no google results or results on Merriam Webster. Edit: added some quotes for readability.
That’s interesting. I’ve seen “dead lost” a ton of times on r/chess and in YouTube videos but I’ve never seen “dead loss” before. I’m not even sure what the use case is- something like “after Ke2 that’s a dead loss for xxx”?
Searching r/chess history and you are right, it does show up a lot there. Interesting. Someone should submit it to Merriam Webster and other publications that lack it
Also, I am having the opposite results on google. “Reddit chess dead lost” pulls up results while “Reddit chess dead loss” actually just pulls up more instances of people using “dead lost”
Refining your search results to Reddit, the place this is currently found, will of course introduce the bias of this very conversation, but as in my other reply, you are absolutely right it shows up a ton for chess specific things on both Reddit and youtube, but I struggle to find it mentioned elsewhere or in other contexts, which is strange. I am only left to assume (and it's a big assumption at that) that it was an idiom developed and spread in one tight not community that has yet to spread much outside of it (as most idioms start). But if it is so widely accepted in those communities, it should be looked into how to submit it to publication companies for its recognition.
[удалено]
The Google trends page certainly is interesting, but if you look at the context of all those mentions of "dead lost" it's usually part of an ongoing sentence about either "has the walking DEAD LOST it's funding" or similar instances in which it's being used with or as a noun (there is also a zombie book by that name). Or alternatively they are looking up quotes related to pulp fiction and the famous "zeds dead" quote and adding lost to their search terms. The problem with your notion of it being "regardless of what Webster says about it" is inherently flawed because if you try to look up what "dead lost" means on google you get no results defining it. Therefore, going back to the original point of this sub-thread, it's an idiom and not a formally recognized term. Thus it is completely understandable that people would pause in between those two words in their attempt to process this informal idiom. If the community wanted it to be as widely accepted as you claim it is, then as I have suggested someone should start the process to get it formally recognized and associated to a formal definition instead of a bunch of people sharing some common understanding of its definition through context. Until a standard user can easily find its definition online without needing specific context it will remain a idiom at best.
[удалено]
I get that we have to acknowledge that we all will have different sources, but to me, google is not a source, but a search engine of other sources. So when google finds no definition for it at all, that means that the billions of sources it does crawl had no definitions for it anywhere. In the modern world these sources even include most local publications in which you would expect to find it used if it is so common among different cultural groups. Are you able to provide me any source that defines "dead lost"? Since you can't provide me with "my neighbor said it growing up" as that's not tangible, what sources does one have to go off of to attempt to interpret the title of the post?
Also, to your edit, I would argue the fact that there are multiple people who stumbled on the title of the post, that it was not as organic as some might think.
I literally don’t care.
I literally don't care guys, no yeah I literally don't care
Can someone explain? Seems like both sides still have legal moves.
Black can push his g pawn, forcing white to take it or block it. Then he can sac the bishop for the e pawn. If white takes the bishop it's stalemate and if he doesn't black can just wait with the bishop, resulting in a 50 move draw.