explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1801: Decision Paralysis

2025-12-05T18:41:16Z

2001:4C4E:1C14:9800:510:5FFF:5C48:221D:

Don't hurt me: First explanation. There's serious problems with it, I know. Be gentle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.159|162.158.62.159]] 05:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[[356: Nerd Sniping]] appears to be a practical application of this. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.16|162.158.114.16]] 09:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[[309:_Shopping_Teams]] is also directly relevant. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Talking about Nerds: [[309: Shopping Teams]] ??? {{unsigned ip|141.101.76.250}}
:Yes to shopping teams no to Nerd snipping. Completely different reason to wasting time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Depends on what internet service you use to make your decision. I tried to compare car reviews with Amazon's Alexa and it led me to binge watching the recently concluded season of The Grand Tour. [[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]] ([[User talk:Nialpxe|talk]]) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction upon seeing the comic was: "There are two of you and two cars! Just steal each a car and whoever gets to the base first starts dealing with the bomb. (Plus, you get to find which car is faster)" [[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.178|188.114.110.178]] 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:Good point. Of course the joke is that Cueball/Randall gets sucked into comparing. The third option might seem like a good alternative rather than risking being at the base when the bomb explodes (more likely due to the time wasted in the first place...) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Randall has previously mentioned ways of harming him, like that one where he taught everyone to impersonate him, or trick his friends into punching him. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.100|141.101.76.100]] 19:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:I guess you mean this for the impersonate: [[1121: Identity]]. I'm a bit more uncertain if the other is this one [[706: Freedom]]. But this seems more like something that could happen not something that has happened. I have included the first as I think that it relevant. Thanks. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
::I meant [[1057: Klout]] for the punching one. But reading it back, I'm not so convinced anymore. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.100|141.101.76.100]] 06:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Ah. By the way those two comics 706 and 1057 "klout" up each other, as both invites people to hit Randall so now he will not know why people do it :-) And I agree that it is not so clearly an invitation as the one about Identity or this comic --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If the pair are, as the page asserts, standing next to the cars then megan would have said ''these cars''. also, the cars as drawn, if next to the pair, are '''very small''' and floating in space. they appear instead to be quite '''far away'''. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.18|141.101.107.18]] 12:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:Agree have changed the line in the transcript. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The title, and the comic, seem to about the well known phenomenon "Analysis Paralysis", see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis this page]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.4|172.68.34.4]] 03:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My girlfriend always says - The harder a decision is, the less it matters [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.46|162.158.78.46]] 20:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:Wow. That is really insightful - I will remember this, thank you (and her)! [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Possible car models ===
I don't know if it's at all significant, but the car on the right is recognizably a 2016 Toyota Prius - I own one of these and the rear end of the car has a very distinctive design. The Prius does have good traction control - the 2004 model was one of the first "mid-level" (read: non-sport, non-luxury) vehicles to prominently feature Vehicle Stability Control, so while this feature is now common in most cars, the Prius still retains some notability for having it. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 23:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
: There's another (admittedly tenuous) link here: The advertising campaign for the 2016 Prius, introduced during the Super Bowl that year, featured a couple of bank robbers stealing a Prius and using it to evade the cops in various ways that showed off the car's features - most notably its improved performance (over older models) and its high gas mileage. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 23:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
::The specific car model is irrelevant at this comic.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
:: '''(Edit Conflict)''' Actually, nevermind - I zoomed in and realized that the car isn't as definite as I thought. It does have the general shape of a Prius, but the features would need to be better defined. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:::* I think the car on the left looks like like its optics are from 2000 Ford Mustang, while its roof should be from 90's Mustang. Both cars have decent acceleration, but 90's 3.8L V6 Mustang has top speed limited to 115mph. Muscle cars are not so good at traction, also.

So, there ''may'' be a competition between new Prius and robust Mustang or basically any muscle car.

This would be 1–0 – timeout. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C14:9800:510:5FFF:5C48:221D|2001:4C4E:1C14:9800:510:5FFF:5C48:221D]] 18:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

1800: Chess Notation

2025-12-05T18:34:13Z

2001:4C4E:1C14:9800:510:5FFF:5C48:221D: /* Chess notation */?? can turn wins into losses (help- and selfmate)

{{comic
| number = 1800
| date = February 17, 2017
| title = Chess Notation
| image = chess_notation.png
| titletext = I've decided to score all my conversations using chess win-loss notation. (??)
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] begins a conversation with [[White Hat]] with the declaration that he will be scoring his conversations using [[#Chess notation|chess notation]] (hence the title). White Hat is not interested, so the conversation dies out, with both Cueball and White Hat saying "Fine". For Cueball, that might be due to it having become a personally satisfying conclusion to the short conversation, whereas White Hat may instead be stating that (from a low bar) there's no possible way the conversation could get any better; but both would be content with their apparent 'agreement'.

And just as promised, Cueball has scored this particular conversation, giving it a '''[[#Draws in chess|½-½]]''', as he believes that this is a [[#Draw in conversation|drawn conversation]]. The reasons for the draw may be due to agreement (both parties walk away afterwards), a stalemate (the conversation isn't going anywhere), draw by repetition (both players have played the same moves over and over again, and cannot improve their position - probably if "Fine" had been repeated more times), 50-move rule (the conversation has been going on fruitlessly for too long - unlikely here since it is only 4 dialogues long), insufficient material (they’ve no more material to continue the conversation) or something else. There could be some similarities between [[#Chess games and conversations|chess games and conversations]]. In general, see more under the [[#Trivia|trivia]] section.

The title text contains the same assertion that Cueball is scoring all his conversations in chess notation, followed by a (??). In chess notation, (??) means the move in question was a very bad, or losing, move - a blunder. Cueball scores this part of the conversation as a blunder, which is understandable as it immediately turned the conversation against him. It can also be considered a losing move not just in the conversation but in general, being a confusing and pointless decision with no apparent gain. If Cueball is treating his conversation itself like a chess game (memorizing openings, using tactics, and evaluating various possible things to say), then he will avoid ever opening a conversation with this statement again. If he was scoring his idea to score his conversations as a blunder, then that itself may yet be another blunder. Either way, quite a ?? indeed!!

The (??) may also be interpreted not as chess notation, but as regular interpunction, in which case it would denote a confused reaction by someone who doesn't know what chess notation is (like White Hat in the comic). This makes it a double entendre, covering both the case when either the conversation party or the reader doesn't understand what chess notation is (and thus reacts with confusion to Cueball's announcement), and the case when chess notation is understood, and actually used to comment on the soundness of Cueball's move as being a blunder.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and White Hat facing each other.]
:Cueball: I've decided to score all my conversations using chess win-loss notation.
:White Hat: I don't know or care what that means.
:Cueball: Fine.
:White Hat: Fine.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:½–½

==Trivia==
The following points are debated:
*[[#Chess notation|Chess notation]]
*[[#Draws in chess|Draws in chess]]
*[[#Draw in conversation|Draw in conversation]]
*[[#Chess games and conversations|Chess games and conversations]]

=== Chess notation ===
{{w|Chess}} players and critics use certain {{w|chess notation|notations}} to write down chess games in a very short fashion (for example the {{w|Forsyth–Edwards Notation}}, which is both computer- and human-readable). In addition, ''{{w|chess annotation symbols}}'' like ! and !? help to comment certain moves in a similarly short fashion. That way it is possible to print or discuss a chess game (or a chess opening) in a limited space, for example in printed reference manuals.

A short synopsis about common chess annotation symbols:

!! – brilliant move: Very strong and counter-intuitive move. A sound sacrifice. 
! – good move: A surprisingly good move. 
!? – interesting move: Risky, or worthy of attention and analysis. 
?! – dubious move: Designates a move that may be bad, but it is hard to explain why. 
? – mistake: Poor move that should not be played. 
'''??''' – {{w|blunder (chess)|blunder}}: Exceptionally bad move, usually designates a move that turns a winning position into a draw or a losing position, or a draw into a losing position. 

The score of the "white" player is always given first, followed by the score of the "black" player. Possible {{w|Chess tournament#Scoring|notations}} for the game outcome are: 

1-0 – a win (for white) 
0-1 – a loss (for white) 
'''½-½''' – a draw 

Because every chess game begins by moving a white piece, the following can be observed: When Cueball ends a conversation with 1-0,
* he either began the conversation, and won it;
* or he responded to a communication request, and lost the conversation.

=== Draws in chess ===
A chess game can be won (and lost for the other party) or {{w|draw (chess)|drawn}}. It should be noted that draws most commonly occur by {{w|Draw by agreement|agreement}}, or very rarely by {{w|stalemate}}. A stalemate is a situation where the opponent's king is not in check, but none of the opponent's pieces can be moved in a legal way. In a human conversation, what amounts to a draw, and what amounts to a stalemate?

If agreed draws should be allowed (and under which circumstances) is a matter of some discussion among chess players, thus adding another point to Randall's comic. For example, some tournament rules (e.g. the so-called "{{w|Draw by agreement#Only theoretical draws allowed (Sofia Rules)|Sofia Rules}}") do not allow a draw to be offered directly - any player has first to announce the intention of drawing to the arbiter (referee), who then decides if the position should be played out further or not.

The official chess rules offer some ways the concept of a "draw" could be applied to a human conversation. According to the {{w|World Chess Federation}} (FIDE) rules, a draw can occur:
#by agreement. Any player can offer a draw when it is their turn to move.
#by stalemate. As explained above: The king is not in check, but no legal moves are available.
#when the same position (with the same possible legal moves) occurs at least three times, with the same player having the same possibilities of moving their pieces. This draw must be requested by the player. According to the FIDE rule 9.6, the arbiter themselves declares the game drawn when the same position occurs five times.
#when 50 moves have passed without a capture or a pawn move. Again, the draw occurs only upon request. According to the same FIDE rule 9.6, the arbiter declares the game drawn when 75 moves have passed, without a request by either player.
#when one of the players has used up their time, but their opponent has not enough material to mate. For example, king and pawn mate against a king in certain situations, while king against king leads to a draw by the 50-move-rule.
#when both players have used up their time, but the arbiter cannot determine who did so first. This is impossible with modern electronic chess clocks, though.
#upon request, when the opponent does not play seriously and attempts to win the game by timeout.

=== Draw in conversation ===
*So, what's a "draw" in a conversation?
**Draw agreed: As pointed out by Randall in his cartoon, a drawn conversation is one where all participants agree.
**50-move-rule: Conversation is drawn, based on the excessive duration of the talk.
**Draw by repetition: Both participants have talked in circles, arriving at the same conclusions all over again. No progress has been made.
**Draw by stalemate: When A cannot convince B, but B doesn't have any legal argument left, and would have to resort to lies or logical fallacies in order to continue.

=== Chess games and conversations ===
*The notion of applying chess scores to conversations raises the question if and how chess play and conversations can be compared.
**Chess games and human conversations do have some things in common, but of course also many differences.

;Similarities
*The outcome fully depends on the behavior of the partner/opponent.
*As in chess, there is no certainty that a certain statement will have the desired effect. The opponent can always react in a surprising way.
*Chess players, like conversation partners, do not "calculate" the opponent's next move(s). They don't compute anything. They are not cold-blooded machines. They do, however, similar to conversation partners in a job interview or a televised debate:
**create a plan, and revise and refine it as necessary
**try to get a good feel of the situation, and try to remember how they dealt with a similar situation in the past
**try to identify the opponent's weaknesses, and try to remedy one's own weaknesses. Prepare against surprises and pitfalls.
**focus on a few promising moves, and quickly spot if they're easily refutable. "You see, I spent 8 years programming {{w|BANCStar programming language|BANCStar}} applications at..." - "Anybody with that experience is dangerous and should be locked up." - "Oh."
*The question of what is considered a good move (or statement) can only be answered in a subjective way. Chess engines though use algorithms to assess the position, and they can calculate the value of different possible moves. In human conversations, social norms help avoid making bad moves.
*It is difficult to win against an experienced, alert partner or opponent. Competent exploitation of the opponent's errors is often the only way to win.
*In both, you will try to find moves that make your win more probable, while avoiding deleterious moves. Due to inadequate computing power, it is hitherto impossible to calculate all possible ways a chess game (or a conversation) could play out. See also [[1002: Game AIs]]. Therefore it is impossible to design a path that leads to a guaranteed outcome - except when the situation has been simplified enough. There are handbooks to play endgames, explaining how to secure either a win or a draw, no matter the capability of the opponent. Nowadays, computer-generated {{w|endgame tablebase}}s exist for six-piece and seven-piece endgames. Those for six pieces are freely available and are about 1 terabyte large.

;Differences:
*Chess games are inherently competitive, zero-sum ventures; if one player wins, the other loses. In contrast, conversations aren't usually competitive, so there isn't really a concept of a winner and loser unless the conversation was an argument or debate. Often, both people in a ''friendly'' conversation will benefit ("win") from having had the conversation.
*Both chess games and conversations are turn-based, but lacking time controls, people's statements sometimes go on and on and on ...
*Especially in disputes, (agreed) draws are extremely rare.
*It is difficult to judge the winner of a conversation.
*In chess, every position of the pieces can be analyzed completely independent of the previous moves. It does not matter how the situation evolved. After 1.e4 e5 and 1.e3 e6 2.e4 e5, there is an identical situation. Due to human emotions, though, this is not the case for conversations. No situation is ever exactly the same.
*Chess games are extremely constrained by a set of rules. Players are expected to behave gentlemanly, and arbiters can hand out punishments for any behavior that brings the game into disrepute.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Social interactions]]