ICC for CCT11

[bob]

This is simply wrong. I attended a simul by GM Walter Browne 30+ years ago. After the simul, he offered to do a blindfolded demo. He asked someone to pick a round from a recent event (I don't remember which now) where Kasparov played Karpov was the game chosen. He sat in a chair, eyes covered, and started going through the game. He would allow questions anywhere along the way. You could ask "Why was this move played as opposed to this move?" He would in detail, recite variations, and then flawlessly say "now back to the original position, and recite the location of each piece on the board, and then on to the next real move. At quite a few key points, he gave analysis he had discovered as he went over the games for himself. In this single game, he clearly remembered thousands of positions perfectly. Human memory is far better than you are giving it credit for being.

What you all know! One thing is for sure, Browne wasnt eidetic, this is certified truth by Prof Hyatt. <g>

Apparently you can't tell the difference between "not all GMs are eidetic" and "no GM is eidetic", correct. Hint#1. I said the _former_ not the _latter_. Hint#2. Look up the definition of "all" and then "not" and try to figure out what "not all" means.

Of course this little anecdote doesnt refutate what Uri said at all! And for the single game between K-K Browne wasnt forced to keep thousands of positions in mind. He simply saw the positions of the moves and his commentaries. And BTW of course Browne was eidetic. But continue to dream that no GM ever was.

You did realize I said _we_ got to pick the game??? Browne did _not_ pick the game. Of course not. You don't read... So unless we were incredibly lucky and picked the one game he had analyzed and memorized in detail...

You figure out the rest...

I have a clear counter position and I know I am right:

- all GM in the top ranks are eideticsn if course also top IM

Then you must be brilliant in that you are contradicting years of research by DeGroot, who concluded just the opposite.

- all GM not just only Browne at the time could have shown the moves of all the Wch games with all the analyses - that's homework for the GM

What Wch game? This was a tournament game between kasparov and karpov. Not a Wch game...

Lets change the perspective for a moment. Give the name of a single GM who should have no eidetics in your opinion. Just one. And then we will examine that. As you know by now I claim that all, each and every GM is eidetic, otherwise he would never have got the title.

This is apparently the result of your not knowing the definition of the word. And I am again less and less interested in responding as the discussions go nowhere. I'll wait until the moderator elections happen to have the "last word" in this debate...

[bob]

This is simply wrong. I attended a simul by GM Walter Browne 30+ years ago. After the simul, he offered to do a blindfolded demo. He asked someone to pick a round from a recent event (I don't remember which now) where Kasparov played Karpov was the game chosen. He sat in a chair, eyes covered, and started going through the game. He would allow questions anywhere along the way. You could ask "Why was this move played as opposed to this move?" He would in detail, recite variations, and then flawlessly say "now back to the original position, and recite the location of each piece on the board, and then on to the next real move. At quite a few key points, he gave analysis he had discovered as he went over the games for himself. In this single game, he clearly remembered thousands of positions perfectly. Human memory is far better than you are giving it credit for being.

What you all know! One thing is for sure, Browne wasnt eidetic, this is certified truth by Prof Hyatt. <g>

Apparently you can't tell the difference between "not all GMs are eidetic" and "no GM is eidetic", correct. Hint#1. I said the _former_ not the _latter_. Hint#2. Look up the definition of "all" and then "not" and try to figure out what "not all" means.

Of course this little anecdote doesnt refutate what Uri said at all! And for the single game between K-K Browne wasnt forced to keep thousands of positions in mind. He simply saw the positions of the moves and his commentaries. And BTW of course Browne was eidetic. But continue to dream that no GM ever was.

You did realize I said _we_ got to pick the game??? Browne did _not_ pick the game. Of course not. You don't read... So unless we were incredibly lucky and picked the one game he had analyzed and memorized in detail...

You figure out the rest...

I have a clear counter position and I know I am right:

- all GM in the top ranks are eideticsn if course also top IM

- all GM not just only Browne at the time could have shown the moves of all the Wch games with all the analyses - that's homework for the GM

Lets change the perspective for a moment. Give the name of a single GM who should have no eidetics in your opinion. Just one. And then we will examine that. As you know by now I claim that all, each and every GM is eidetic, otherwise he would never have got the title.

That shows how little you understand about chess and the Chess Mind and how typical the thinking of a half-baked psychologist is.

Krogius & Hebb

Please don't throw insults at the psychologists of the world...

[Rolf]

I never said computer is not able to recognize patterns. As a computer scientist I should know about that. Re-read please.
I said about what we humans do better (nowadays) than computers.
Besides it's completely obvious you know nothing about computer chess.

Also I never called you idiot. I said your statements are idiotic - for obvious reasons.

Matt and Hyatt gave you enough arguments against your crazy ideas. You just ignore those arguments throwing more and more s*** toward the fan to see what happen.

I cant speak with a computer scientist with the name of Ben Hur. Since he cant be Ben Hur, he probably is no computer scientist either. I see only hatred in alleged computer scientists. They attach angry insults in psycho terms but they have simply no education. IMO they also violate the charter which normally forbids insults and personal attacks. Stating that aomeone throuws shit is evil and personal attack. It's by no means less evil than calling someone an idiot. I think that someone is evil who adopts pseudo names only to attack other members with ad hominem. In special if we all just post our opinions. It's strange that Hyatt and now also Ben Hur, lol, want to forbid other people posting their opinions.

"bullshit" is a term that means someone is providing information that is wrong, invalid, etc. That is a _perfect_ description of what you have done in hijacking this thread away from the original topic. You are, without a doubt, the single more obnoxious poster in the two fora I use here. Without a single doubt. And that is _not_ a good thing, IMHO. If you'd stay out of topics you do not understand at all, things would be better. Much better...

So his phraseology is not "evil", just "accurate".

You know what is not a good thing? That you as an absolute ignorant insult others with alleged psychiatric stamps. Look if you call me deep disordered then I claim that you have a veritable inferiority complex, because otherwise you could tolerate that others have opinions that you dont share. Understood? You spoil all the fun here. Why we must all think your opinions? Isnt this a known disorder, Bob? Learn something about tolerance!

[Uri Blass]

You haven't addressed my points at all, but instead repeated your own points, which my points have already addressed. I refuted your GM/patzer argument by showing that patzer play is legal chess. I refuted your cheating argument by the definition of respective internal storage media of humans and computers.

Any player, human or mechanical, which accesses its own internal storage is not cheating.

Indeed I have addressed it. Hint: with my scenario.

My points address your scenario.

But Matt, do you really plan to enter this here and then talking with a deeply rooted disorder? What do you expect here?

Ok, just kidding. Since you have abstained from any insults I will answer you of course. You say internal storage. Do you really mean it? Then human players play with implantated chips for endgame tablebases.

Oh, so you concede the point on openings, since you're changing the subject to EGTBs. But EGTBs are also copied to internal storage.

I prefer the modul mode. I get the necessary data for the next opponent the afternoon before the game. This is all ok for you? IMO all this would violate the eternal FIDE rules of chess. But computers use all that and you call it perfectly normal internal storage, right?

Therefore I would propose a true robot player for tournaments like CCT. Computers who only use selfdiscovered lines. Without any influence of programmers. He will program the feature as such that of the lines finding. The robot remains the same for 6 months. Of course it can itself improve his play after own analyses before and after tournament games. In these 6 months the different players (C) live in neutral zones outside the realm of the programmers. Then the FIDE rule cheating would stop. And that of the ELO number hystery.

All just IMO, 100x excuses.

Computers have self-discovered all the endings in EGTBs. And just like humans, they share their knowledge with other computer players by publishing their findings. All programs using those findings (EGTB) have copied them to their internal storage, just like they do with opening books, just like humans learn openings and endings and store the shared knowledge internally to themselves.

All your arguments have now been addressed.

This is not what I wanted to say. I said that all that I will now also do as a human player. With chips and all I use the same storages the computers allegedly are allowed to use. My question was, it's not really difficult for you to answer, if this is ok for you. Do you think that I then play according to the rules. Please let your distortions, I didnt change the subject but added the endgame topic to my earlier argument to give it some spice. Show me your standpoint, please. I almost smell it that you begin to talk about extra rights you want to have for the poorly playing chess computers. They are allowed to use all the storages but not a human. I mean CC people steal from humans so I can steal from computer analyses, no? Of course during a normal game after the FIDE rules, right? All implantated by surgery. All legal.

Fine. Limit the storage. I have seen estimates giving humans about 2 gigabytes of memory, although it is organized a bit differently. I'll happily play with just 2 gigs of memory. I can fit my under 2 megs of opening data in there, plus the entire chess program, etc. I don't use EGTBs anyway so that is a moot point.

I'm coming into this not knowing what has been said throughout this thread, but humans have only 2 gigs of memory????

I think we store more a lot more at least many terabytes of memory although not efficently.

I've processed over many many terabytes of data in my lifetime, maybe even a petabyte but of course I can't use this vast amout of memory to my advantage.

Is that your point?

I think that the main advantage of computers is speed and not memory.
Give computers hardware that is million times slower then the hardware of today so they can search only few nodes per seconds and I think that they will have rating below 2000 under the fide rules regardless of the opening book.

give rybka no opening book and you can expect her to beat GM's at 120/40 time control.

Edit:Memory is also an advantage but I think that the non constant memory is the real advantage.

computers can use hash with many millions of positions.
Humans simply cannot remember millions of positions and the problem is not time.

Even if you give humans a full year to think about a position with no computer help they will be unable to remember a tree of millions positions.

one year is cleary enough to generate tree of millions positions if you generate 10,000 new positions in the tree every day.

I believe that more than 99.9% of the humans are even unable to remember a tree of 1000 positions that they can generate in one hour but I guess that there are some people with exceptional memory who can do it but I guess that even they cannot remember a tree of 3,650,000 positions that they generate in one year(assuming they think 10 hours every day)

Uri

This is simply wrong. I attended a simul by GM Walter Browne 30+ years ago. After the simul, he offered to do a blindfolded demo. He asked someone to pick a round from a recent event (I don't remember which now) where Kasparov played Karpov was the game chosen. He sat in a chair, eyes covered, and started going through the game. He would allow questions anywhere along the way. You could ask "Why was this move played as opposed to this move?" He would in detail, recite variations, and then flawlessly say "now back to the original position, and recite the location of each piece on the board, and then on to the next real move. At quite a few key points, he gave analysis he had discovered as he went over the games for himself. In this single game, he clearly remembered thousands of positions perfectly. Human memory is far better than you are giving it credit for being.

This does not contradict my opinion.
1)I believe that GM Walter Browne had better memory than more than 99.9% of humans
2)I doubt if even Walter Browne could remember millions of positions.
Memorizing tousands of positions from a single game is not enough to prove it.


In CTS people need to remember less than 100,000 positions based on 10,000 problems that they may get to have perfect 100% score against the problems.

Some IM and GM use that site
and I know nobody of the top players who have something that is close to 100% score against the problems

http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php

I believe that part of the reason that nobody get all problem correct in less than 3 seconds is that it is not very important for GM's but they need a lot of effort to learn 10,000 problems including the solutions and if you increase the number to 1,000,000 the task is going to be impossible for them.

see http://chess.emrald.net/pselection.php


"To fit the skills of a tactician the next problem to be solved is randomly selected from a set of problems within a certain rating range.
This restricts the amount of reachable problems to approx. 10000."

[bob]

I never said computer is not able to recognize patterns. As a computer scientist I should know about that. Re-read please.
I said about what we humans do better (nowadays) than computers.
Besides it's completely obvious you know nothing about computer chess.

Also I never called you idiot. I said your statements are idiotic - for obvious reasons.

Matt and Hyatt gave you enough arguments against your crazy ideas. You just ignore those arguments throwing more and more s*** toward the fan to see what happen.

I cant speak with a computer scientist with the name of Ben Hur. Since he cant be Ben Hur, he probably is no computer scientist either. I see only hatred in alleged computer scientists. They attach angry insults in psycho terms but they have simply no education. IMO they also violate the charter which normally forbids insults and personal attacks. Stating that aomeone throuws shit is evil and personal attack. It's by no means less evil than calling someone an idiot. I think that someone is evil who adopts pseudo names only to attack other members with ad hominem. In special if we all just post our opinions. It's strange that Hyatt and now also Ben Hur, lol, want to forbid other people posting their opinions.

"bullshit" is a term that means someone is providing information that is wrong, invalid, etc. That is a _perfect_ description of what you have done in hijacking this thread away from the original topic. You are, without a doubt, the single more obnoxious poster in the two fora I use here. Without a single doubt. And that is _not_ a good thing, IMHO. If you'd stay out of topics you do not understand at all, things would be better. Much better...

So his phraseology is not "evil", just "accurate".

You know what is not a good thing? That you as an absolute ignorant insult others with alleged psychiatric stamps. Look if you call me deep disordered then I claim that you have a veritable inferiority complex, because otherwise you could tolerate that others have opinions that you dont share. Understood? You spoil all the fun here. Why we must all think your opinions? Isnt this a known disorder, Bob? Learn something about tolerance!

So I am an "absolute ignorant"? Where on earth does that leave you, then???

This is not about _opinion_. This is about _fact_. And FIDE has already declared that computers are valid chess players, and can play in FIDE events if they are willing to pay the extremely high registration fee. I am quite tolerant to "opinions" that are based on factual information. And if you'd present one every now and then, that would be fine. But you haven't, you don't, and I won't.

The main thing I have that you don't, is 40 years of experience in computer chess. I've seen the "computers are not legal" argument many times. More than once by you, in fact. And each time, the arguments boil down to the same thing, "the computer is not human." And nobody said it was. And no rule in the FIDE rule book mentions the distinction between a player based on carbon and a player based on silicon or any other material. And that's all you have to stand on. And it is no good. Nobody claims a computer "understands" anything. We can't even define understanding in human terms yet, so that argument is irrelevant. All I know is that the computer is a computational wonder that can do some things (now including playing chess) better than humans can do them. Cars and motorcycles out-run humans. Fork-lifts out-lift humans. Infrared detectors see better than humans. Humans can't fly but airplanes and helicopters can. Humans can't swim across the ocean by themselves, but a boat can. The list is endless. And meaningless.

[Rolf]

This does not contradict my opinion.
1)I believe that GM Walter Browne had better memory than more than 99.9% of humans
2)I doubt if even Walter Browne could remember millions of positions.
Memorizing tousands of positions from a single game is not enough to prove it.


In CTS people need to remember less than 100,000 positions based on 10,000 problems that they may get to have perfect 100% score against the problems.

Some IM and GM use that site
and I know nobody of the top players who have something that is close to 100% score against the problems

http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php

I believe that part of the reason that nobody get all problem correct in less than 3 seconds is that it is not very important for GM's but they need a lot of effort to learn 10,000 problems including the solutions and if you increase the number to 1,000,000 the task is going to be impossible for them.

Uri, in most details I agree with you - whatever that means for you, but then I see certain weaknesses.

I already asked Hyatt and want to repeat it to you. What do you understand under eidetic or your idea with the 1 million positions? What do you want to say with a not 100% score in CTS? Does this prove for you that these testers cant be called eidetics? Or what does it mean to you?

Let me only describe the basic flaw in these tests. They are not valid over strength in chess. You know what this means? It means that weaker players could have a better result than veritable GM. What does it mean?

IMO a true GM would never learn the positions only to have a better result. Such nonsense is only done by patzers.

Secondly the time limit is very short, too short to solve this without stress.

I claim that a true GM knows the core of all the positions. And normally he should be able to solve it all. But he has not the motivation. The time limit is that you lose percentages.

I dont know what you want to say with CTS. If you were saying that the result proves that almost nobody of the testers has eidetics, or with eidetics these testers must have 100%, then this is probably the wrong perception. Because there are too many other factors. This is also meant with the non-validity.

[bob]

You haven't addressed my points at all, but instead repeated your own points, which my points have already addressed. I refuted your GM/patzer argument by showing that patzer play is legal chess. I refuted your cheating argument by the definition of respective internal storage media of humans and computers.

Any player, human or mechanical, which accesses its own internal storage is not cheating.

Indeed I have addressed it. Hint: with my scenario.

My points address your scenario.

But Matt, do you really plan to enter this here and then talking with a deeply rooted disorder? What do you expect here?

Ok, just kidding. Since you have abstained from any insults I will answer you of course. You say internal storage. Do you really mean it? Then human players play with implantated chips for endgame tablebases.

Oh, so you concede the point on openings, since you're changing the subject to EGTBs. But EGTBs are also copied to internal storage.

I prefer the modul mode. I get the necessary data for the next opponent the afternoon before the game. This is all ok for you? IMO all this would violate the eternal FIDE rules of chess. But computers use all that and you call it perfectly normal internal storage, right?

Therefore I would propose a true robot player for tournaments like CCT. Computers who only use selfdiscovered lines. Without any influence of programmers. He will program the feature as such that of the lines finding. The robot remains the same for 6 months. Of course it can itself improve his play after own analyses before and after tournament games. In these 6 months the different players (C) live in neutral zones outside the realm of the programmers. Then the FIDE rule cheating would stop. And that of the ELO number hystery.

All just IMO, 100x excuses.

Computers have self-discovered all the endings in EGTBs. And just like humans, they share their knowledge with other computer players by publishing their findings. All programs using those findings (EGTB) have copied them to their internal storage, just like they do with opening books, just like humans learn openings and endings and store the shared knowledge internally to themselves.

All your arguments have now been addressed.

This is not what I wanted to say. I said that all that I will now also do as a human player. With chips and all I use the same storages the computers allegedly are allowed to use. My question was, it's not really difficult for you to answer, if this is ok for you. Do you think that I then play according to the rules. Please let your distortions, I didnt change the subject but added the endgame topic to my earlier argument to give it some spice. Show me your standpoint, please. I almost smell it that you begin to talk about extra rights you want to have for the poorly playing chess computers. They are allowed to use all the storages but not a human. I mean CC people steal from humans so I can steal from computer analyses, no? Of course during a normal game after the FIDE rules, right? All implantated by surgery. All legal.

Fine. Limit the storage. I have seen estimates giving humans about 2 gigabytes of memory, although it is organized a bit differently. I'll happily play with just 2 gigs of memory. I can fit my under 2 megs of opening data in there, plus the entire chess program, etc. I don't use EGTBs anyway so that is a moot point.

I'm coming into this not knowing what has been said throughout this thread, but humans have only 2 gigs of memory????

I think we store more a lot more at least many terabytes of memory although not efficently.

I've processed over many many terabytes of data in my lifetime, maybe even a petabyte but of course I can't use this vast amout of memory to my advantage.

Is that your point?

I think that the main advantage of computers is speed and not memory.
Give computers hardware that is million times slower then the hardware of today so they can search only few nodes per seconds and I think that they will have rating below 2000 under the fide rules regardless of the opening book.

give rybka no opening book and you can expect her to beat GM's at 120/40 time control.

Edit:Memory is also an advantage but I think that the non constant memory is the real advantage.

computers can use hash with many millions of positions.
Humans simply cannot remember millions of positions and the problem is not time.

Even if you give humans a full year to think about a position with no computer help they will be unable to remember a tree of millions positions.

one year is cleary enough to generate tree of millions positions if you generate 10,000 new positions in the tree every day.

I believe that more than 99.9% of the humans are even unable to remember a tree of 1000 positions that they can generate in one hour but I guess that there are some people with exceptional memory who can do it but I guess that even they cannot remember a tree of 3,650,000 positions that they generate in one year(assuming they think 10 hours every day)

Uri

This is simply wrong. I attended a simul by GM Walter Browne 30+ years ago. After the simul, he offered to do a blindfolded demo. He asked someone to pick a round from a recent event (I don't remember which now) where Kasparov played Karpov was the game chosen. He sat in a chair, eyes covered, and started going through the game. He would allow questions anywhere along the way. You could ask "Why was this move played as opposed to this move?" He would in detail, recite variations, and then flawlessly say "now back to the original position, and recite the location of each piece on the board, and then on to the next real move. At quite a few key points, he gave analysis he had discovered as he went over the games for himself. In this single game, he clearly remembered thousands of positions perfectly. Human memory is far better than you are giving it credit for being.

This does not contradict my opinion.
1)I believe that GM Walter Browne had better memory than more than 99.9% of humans
2)I doubt if even Walter Browne could remember millions of positions.
Memorizing tousands of positions from a single game is not enough to prove it.


In CTS people need to remember less than 100,000 positions based on 10,000 problems that they may get to have perfect 100% score against the problems.

Some IM and GM use that site
and I know nobody of the top players who have something that is close to 100% score against the problems

http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php

I believe that part of the reason that nobody get all problem correct in less than 3 seconds is that it is not very important for GM's but they need a lot of effort to learn 10,000 problems including the solutions and if you increase the number to 1,000,000 the task is going to be impossible for them.

see http://chess.emrald.net/pselection.php


"To fit the skills of a tactician the next problem to be solved is randomly selected from a set of problems within a certain rating range.
This restricts the amount of reachable problems to approx. 10000."

The "effort" is debatable. You can find some remarkable feats of eidetic memory if you search the web. I watched a guy take a shuffled deck of cards, spend under 30 seconds running thru it by hand, and then reciting all 52 cards in the correct order. There have been other examples of near-instantaneous memorization by musicians that can hear a piece (a long piece, such as a Mozart symphony or whatever) and then re-create the score on paper perfectly. After having heard the performance exactly one time.

I don't believe (and neither did DeGroot) that most GM players are capable of that, in that they can read a book and memorize everything in it in terms of chess games and moves. Some may well be able to , but not all. Some might study the book for a few hours and have it down cold. Some might take weeks or months. But most GMs can learn those openings flawlessly given time.

[Rolf]

This is not about _opinion_. This is about _fact_. And FIDE has already declared that computers are valid chess players, and can play in FIDE events if they are willing to pay the extremely high registration fee. I am quite tolerant to "opinions" that are based on factual information.

What a nonsense. What can you do with the chance if you dont find human players who are willing to participate? We had this for example in the Dutch Masters. I think at least three players did indicate their protest indirectly by nonsense play. No, perhaps intheory you had a chance but not in this real world of classical chess. And that has nothing to do with the detail that players DONT regard this as a fair play in the spirit of the FIDE rules?

[bob]

This does not contradict my opinion.
1)I believe that GM Walter Browne had better memory than more than 99.9% of humans
2)I doubt if even Walter Browne could remember millions of positions.
Memorizing tousands of positions from a single game is not enough to prove it.


In CTS people need to remember less than 100,000 positions based on 10,000 problems that they may get to have perfect 100% score against the problems.

Some IM and GM use that site
and I know nobody of the top players who have something that is close to 100% score against the problems

http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php

I believe that part of the reason that nobody get all problem correct in less than 3 seconds is that it is not very important for GM's but they need a lot of effort to learn 10,000 problems including the solutions and if you increase the number to 1,000,000 the task is going to be impossible for them.

Uri, in most details I agree with you - whatever that means for you, but then I see certain weaknesses.

I already asked Hyatt and want to repeat it to you. What do you understand under eidetic or your idea with the 1 million positions? What do you want to say with a not 100% score in CTS? Does this prove for you that these testers cant be called eidetics? Or what does it mean to you?

Let me only describe the basic flaw in these tests. They are not valid over strength in chess. You know what this means? It means that weaker players could have a better result than veritable GM. What does it mean?

IMO a true GM would never learn the positions only to have a better result. Such nonsense is only done by patzers.

Secondly the time limit is very short, too short to solve this without stress.

I claim that a true GM knows the core of all the positions. And normally he should be able to solve it all. But he has not the motivation. The time limit is that you lose percentages.

I dont know what you want to say with CTS. If you were saying that the result proves that almost nobody of the testers has eidetics, or with eidetics these testers must have 100%, then this is probably the wrong perception. Because there are too many other factors. This is also meant with the non-validity.

You really don't understand the term. I had a calc teacher in 1967 that was an eidetic. He could recite page and line from the two calc books we used, the differential equations book, the analytic geometry book. With no problem. But in talking with him, one thing I found he could _not_ do, was to match a unknown page of a book with the book and real page number. I could give him a xerox copy of a page, and it took him a _long_ time to figure out where it came from, yet in class if someone asked a question, he could refer to page and line# and explain the answer quickly. So this is not necessarily a help to GMs as recalling a long series of things in order, or by some sort of "index marker" is not very helpful in playing real games. But it _does_ help at the beginning where the opening moves are played instantly for 10-20 and sometimes even 30 moves deep before the GM has to start "thinking". Whether you like that or not, that is actually what happens in GM games. I have watched _many_ over the years, at events like the US open, the World open, etc... The difference between the two of us is I have actually watched these games, you have only read about them... There is a world of difference when seeing them in person...

[Rolf]

The "effort" is debatable. You can find some remarkable feats of eidetic memory if you search the web. I watched a guy take a shuffled deck of cards, spend under 30 seconds running thru it by hand, and then reciting all 52 cards in the correct order. There have been other examples of near-instantaneous memorization by musicians that can hear a piece (a long piece, such as a Mozart symphony or whatever) and then re-create the score on paper perfectly. After having heard the performance exactly one time.

I don't believe (and neither did DeGroot) that most GM players are capable of that, in that they can read a book and memorize everything in it in terms of chess games and moves. Some may well be able to , but not all. Some might study the book for a few hours and have it down cold. Some might take weeks or months. But most GMs can learn those openings flawlessly given time.

So for you as a psychology lay the web is now decisive for the content of the science? What is eidetic for you? For the chess GM it's clear that they have a talent to keep all the details in mind, but they are not idiot savants or show talents. But as far as chess is concerned they know their details in perfection.

Problem is, how to examine it. They wont simply reveil in public the true realm of their memory. Did you never think about this? This is psychology and not computerchess.