ICC for CCT11

[Rolf]

Your statements are so idiotic that shouldn't be even answered. As a "psychologist" you may want to LISTEN what people here are saying. What you cannot realize is that the book is simply a file-based artifact in a filesystem that is the ONLY way computer programs can store/retrieve information. As like you use you neural nets to storage book lines. The only difference is that computers can store a lot more information.

Now you think about this scenario:

There's a savant chess player that can memorize every book line he reads. Is he cheating FIDE rules?

By the way, Crafty - specifically - doesn't only copy moves from the book to play it. You should understand what you are talking about before saying rubbish.

All I said is that GM dont play like that because if they did they would lose. Playing just such memorized lines isnt winning against strong opponents who know the lines too. Know what I mean? That is also the reason why not every eidetic is a chess GM. But every chess GM is eidetic. But he doesnt use it just to play along memorized lines. Chess is more than its moves. A GM must much more analyse than what he could ever play.

[bob]

You have tried to hijack this thread _twice_ now. You turned it into a deep blue rant, and now a computers-cant-play-legal-chess rant. why don't you just fade away? Would you please stop posting such nonsense. You have burned out my bullshit detector so many times, I can't convince anyone to buy me another one. It is _impossible_ to eliminate all cheating possibilities. It is just yet another attempt to start a long and fruitless discussion about nothing. Which is about the only thing you are qualified to discuss herein. At least _their_ arbiters agree, and that carries a lot more weight than your irrational opinion on the subject.
There are medications to treat this kind of schizo-behaviour, you should see what you can find and come back down to planet earth, from wherever it is you are...

What I quote here is symbolic for Bob Hyatt writing stuff if he wants to attack someone ad hominem because he had opinions different to Bob Hyatt. This is just ugly as output of an academic. Because if it were only allowed to write Hyatt stuff then the rest here could stop posting and Bob could dictate what is the "truth". This is just laughable because we have a debate here and we take part in our free decision. I dont get it why Hyatt is entitled to defamate certain opinions! IMO this is against the charter of CCC which forbids personal attacks of other members.

It would appear that your comprehension level is steadily going downward.

I am not the _only_ person that has told you your opinions in this thread are nonsense. You only have to re-read the thread to find others that think your posts are "rubbish" as well.

This was a debate about where to hold CCT events. It should stay a debate about where to hold CCT events. Absolutely _nothing_ you have posted has any bearing on how that decision might be made. Absolutely _nothing_. This has nothing to do with deep blue. This has nothing to do with the long-put-to-rest debate about whether a computer plays legal chess or not.

Why you can't grasp that simple concept is beyond me. (and apparently beyond others as well). I was dead serious about running as a moderator next time around, with the platform that I have to be elected by a majority of those voting, and that if I am elected, "rolf" will no longer exist in CCC. That's not something I would do lightly, but it appears to be the only way to get rid of a pox on this forum that simply won't grow up or won't go away. The members can decide whether they agree or not. Something tells me your days might well be numbered, if the members have any say-so.

Your most serious problem is that you make statements as if they are fact. (The eidetic comment) and then when someone gives you a reference to show that statement was complete nonsense, you do not respond at all. You just shift gears and go off on a new tangent. It is pretty hard to argue with cold hard facts, isn't it? And DeGroot presented some cold, hard facts in his book. Facts that I read so long ago I could not begin to tell you the year I read the book. It was somewhere in the 70's, which is a long while back. You ought to try reading some technical stuff on a subject before you wade in and claim to be an authority on the topic. You end up looking like an old man suffering from some form of dementia, where you could do better if you only tried.

[bob]

use the inter-library loan program to get a copy of "Thought and Choice in Chess" by DeGroot? First thing you will learn is that GM players are _not_ eidetic. And DeGroot proved that quite nicely. Some _might_ be, but most are _not_.

Not at all. de Groot was researching something else. And this has nothing to do with eidetic. However indirectly he showed the importance of eidetics for chess.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. He was researching how a GM actually _plays_ the game. And he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that eidetics plays no role in the process. Just re-read his experiment with setting up chess positions and giving them to beginners and GMs to reconstruct. Eidetics can reconstruct things after a short study. There are those that can read a music score one time, then play it blindfolded. There are those that can listen to a performance one time, and recreate the musical score perfectly. There are those that have memorized 1,000,000 digits of PI, and can give you any part you want, based on page and column number where it was originally printed. And none of that fit the GM and chess... so you are simply wrong.

Let me explain what he showed. If shown a chess position that makes sense, meaning that it's taken from real chess, THEN the GM could recall much better the position than the amateurs! The opposite also came out that if shown a totally scrumbled casual position without "meaning" than the amateurs could recall the details likewise well like the GM.

QED. That is not eidetic memory.

de Groot was the first who then discovered the importance of so called chunks that a GM is using. Chunk isnt just a memorized move or a exactly defined position but something in a configuration that is defined by certain chess content (where a single pawn on a2 might be uninteresting). The GM in his play is now searching for similarities that spring to his mind which makes his chess so outstanding compared to a patzer. The difference between a GM and a patzer is that a patzer tries to play memorized moves while a GM even in a opening vartiation doent play moves but he tries to recall the priciples, the gestalt, of chess positions. Here the eidetic talent is absolutely necessary because you search into the imagined future of chess situations and to handle the details it's absolutely necessary to recall the differences of the hundreds of position of a calculation. Here a patzer must by definition blunder because there are no *moves* to recall, but there are imagined pictures of positions plus the evaluations. Chunks are always in play. - Hope this helps a bit.

Never said they were not. But "chunks" are not eidetic memory.

[Rolf]

Yes, in over 80 messages a single member besides Hyatt attacked me for bein idiotic. The name of the one was **Ben-Hur Carlos Langoni Junior**. A well know name in the history of CCC.

Bu then you are totally wrong. I have opinions like all others. I wouldnt claim that I am the only one who could know the "truth". Zjis position is already taken by Bob Hyatt.

Again please let me post my opinions. If you then could just let it stay without distorting it then I had not to correct all the time what I had really meant. If however you enjoyed my opinions and just diagreed then show at least a minimum of respect for your correspondent. I see a schizo in people who pretend they dislike my opinions but they are addicted to say something. Also IF the members would get bored by my opinions then this thread wouldnt be now at some 3000 clicks. It's one of the most interesting threads for our members. But Hyatt would prefer that his correspondent should be banned. Now this is strange. And contradicting realities. Just let me live, Bob, and have my opinions. Whether they are always reasonable today that is another question. But I write in a general sense. Also about possible future scenarios. Please dont censor that.

[Rolf]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. He was researching how a GM actually _plays_ the game. And he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that eidetics plays no role in the process. Just re-read his experiment with setting up chess positions and giving them to beginners and GMs to reconstruct. Eidetics can reconstruct things after a short study. There are those that can read a music score one time, then play it blindfolded. There are those that can listen to a performance one time, and recreate the musical score perfectly. There are those that have memorized 1,000,000 digits of PI, and can give you any part you want, based on page and column number where it was originally printed. And none of that fit the GM and chess... so you are simply wrong.

Re-read the book. You have it wrong. But I dont accuse you for something you havent studied. I dont insult people. You have forgotten about the meaning of positions. Again a GM is eidetic but he doesnt recall non-sensical positions. BTW that is why GM dont like machine chess because it's not chess. <g>

[Rolf]

de Groot was the first who then discovered the importance of so called chunks that a GM is using. Chunk isnt just a memorized move or a exactly defined position but something in a configuration that is defined by certain chess content (where a single pawn on a2 might be uninteresting). The GM in his play is now searching for similarities that spring to his mind which makes his chess so outstanding compared to a patzer. The difference between a GM and a patzer is that a patzer tries to play memorized moves while a GM even in a opening vartiation doent play moves but he tries to recall the priciples, the gestalt, of chess positions. Here the eidetic talent is absolutely necessary because you search into the imagined future of chess situations and to handle the details it's absolutely necessary to recall the differences of the hundreds of position of a calculation. Here a patzer must by definition blunder because there are no *moves* to recall, but there are imagined pictures of positions plus the evaluations. Chunks are always in play. - Hope this helps a bit.

Never said they were not. But "chunks" are not eidetic memory.

Bob, if you think about a position and then search for images that you might already know and then calculate a lot, you need such a memory because it's too big to handle without.

Let me also explain something to the de Groot experiments. When he showed the positions during the AVRO tournament in 1938 he didnt tell the GM what he was searching. He didnt tell them now a scrumbled position. He just showed them. He was the very first to do that. Now think about the task. The GM didnt know that there was no sense in it whatsoever. So, with his usual view the GM couldnt store the "stupid" positions.

We should try to define what eidetic means. And also I am NOT talking about extremest idiots savants. Here you already agreed that eidetics ALONE doesnt make it in chess. Bob, and now is the moment you could also agree with me that exactly this is the reason why computerchess is so disturbing. You know that you violate the FIDE rules.

[Rolf]

Add-on. During the AMBER in CB someone, John Nunn?, gave a difficult position for his collegues. They searched and couldnt find the mate in three. Some even claimed that there was something odd. And only they were dead on because what the one had missed is that another P was on e5 so that the K couldnt walk out there. The Mate in 3 is trivial for such players but take a P away they need a lot of time before they finally state that it's impossible to solve. However if the whole puzzle had been introduced as something odd where you had to look for strange things, then I am certain a GM would imediately have said but there is a P on e5 then the solution is easy. Know wgat I mean. I hope I could show you something where the "as such" shape of a brain isnt decisive but the social situation how something is presented. In other words, the GM were ONLY weak for the other positions because they didnt know about the different sort of tasks. If they had been informed they would have ran down the 32 pieces per board in minutes. Sense or non-sensical!

-all my personal opinions (just for the friendship with Dr. Bob)

[bob]

Yes, in over 80 messages a single member besides Hyatt attacked me for bein idiotic. The name of the one was **Ben-Hur Carlos Langoni Junior**. A well know name in the history of CCC.

Bu then you are totally wrong. I have opinions like all others. I wouldnt claim that I am the only one who could know the "truth". Zjis position is already taken by Bob Hyatt.

Again please let me post my opinions. If you then could just let it stay without distorting it then I had not to correct all the time what I had really meant. If however you enjoyed my opinions and just diagreed then show at least a minimum of respect for your correspondent. I see a schizo in people who pretend they dislike my opinions but they are addicted to say something. Also IF the members would get bored by my opinions then this thread wouldnt be now at some 3000 clicks. It's one of the most interesting threads for our members. But Hyatt would prefer that his correspondent should be banned. Now this is strange. And contradicting realities. Just let me live, Bob, and have my opinions. Whether they are always reasonable today that is another question. But I write in a general sense. Also about possible future scenarios. Please dont censor that.

You can have all the opinions you want. Just don't keep posting the _same_ ones, over and over, in threads that are completely unrelated to your opinions.

There was not one mention of IBM, or deep blue, or "do computers play legal chess" anywhere in this thread. Nor should there be.

By the way, you missed others that disagree with your claims. Gerold, Matt are two that come to mind... So it isn't "just one lone voice..."

[bob]

Your statements are so idiotic that shouldn't be even answered. As a "psychologist" you may want to LISTEN what people here are saying. What you cannot realize is that the book is simply a file-based artifact in a filesystem that is the ONLY way computer programs can store/retrieve information. As like you use you neural nets to storage book lines. The only difference is that computers can store a lot more information.

Now you think about this scenario:

There's a savant chess player that can memorize every book line he reads. Is he cheating FIDE rules?

By the way, Crafty - specifically - doesn't only copy moves from the book to play it. You should understand what you are talking about before saying rubbish.

All I said is that GM dont play like that because if they did they would lose. Playing just such memorized lines isnt winning against strong opponents who know the lines too. Know what I mean? That is also the reason why not every eidetic is a chess GM. But every chess GM is eidetic. But he doesnt use it just to play along memorized lines. Chess is more than its moves. A GM must much more analyse than what he could ever play.

You keep twisting what is being written. Nobody says a GM "blindly plays moves from memory with no regard to the context or anything..." But you play a mainline opening and the GM will play instantly for 20+ moves. And he is _not_ thinking about the analysis when he is doing so. he simply knows what comes next unless you make an odd move, where he will start to think to discover why it was wrong. Sounds like a computer to me...

[bob]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. He was researching how a GM actually _plays_ the game. And he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that eidetics plays no role in the process. Just re-read his experiment with setting up chess positions and giving them to beginners and GMs to reconstruct. Eidetics can reconstruct things after a short study. There are those that can read a music score one time, then play it blindfolded. There are those that can listen to a performance one time, and recreate the musical score perfectly. There are those that have memorized 1,000,000 digits of PI, and can give you any part you want, based on page and column number where it was originally printed. And none of that fit the GM and chess... so you are simply wrong.

Re-read the book. You have it wrong. But I dont accuse you for something you havent studied. I dont insult people. You have forgotten about the meaning of positions. Again a GM is eidetic but he doesnt recall non-sensical positions. BTW that is why GM dont like machine chess because it's not chess. <g>

Again, you have it wrong. All GMs are _not_ eidetic. No matter how many times you want to claim this. Funny you say GMs don't like machine chess. I certainly have enough of them playing my program. I can't imagine why they would play something they don't like?