ICC for CCT11

[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.

[bob]

Just to mention computers are better playing tactically and humans are better playing positionally. The human brain is better to recognize patterns and generalize knowledge and it compensate the relative slow speed of processing by having a much better parallelization. The human capacity to search trees doesn't give any hint about how good it can be playing chess.

Absolutely wrong in all points.

The difference between man and machine isnt tactical vs positional or better or worse pattern recognition.

It's absolute nonsense that a computer shouldnt be able to recognize patterns. Of course it can. But this isnt the point what is more difficult or even impossible for a computer. I wont tell people who call me idiot. I enjoy seeing them fail, honestly.

Then for heaven's sake, look in the mirror regularly and you will have a lifetime of happiness...

[Rolf]

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>

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.

[bhlangonijr]

Just to mention computers are better playing tactically and humans are better playing positionally. The human brain is better to recognize patterns and generalize knowledge and it compensate the relative slow speed of processing by having a much better parallelization. The human capacity to search trees doesn't give any hint about how good it can be playing chess.

Absolutely wrong in all points.

The difference between man and machine isnt tactical vs positional or better or worse pattern recognition.

It's absolute nonsense that a computer shouldnt be able to recognize patterns. Of course it can. But this isnt the point what is more difficult or even impossible for a computer. I wont tell people who call me idiot. I enjoy seeing them fail, honestly.

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.

[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.

[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...

[bob]

Just to mention computers are better playing tactically and humans are better playing positionally. The human brain is better to recognize patterns and generalize knowledge and it compensate the relative slow speed of processing by having a much better parallelization. The human capacity to search trees doesn't give any hint about how good it can be playing chess.

Absolutely wrong in all points.

The difference between man and machine isnt tactical vs positional or better or worse pattern recognition.

It's absolute nonsense that a computer shouldnt be able to recognize patterns. Of course it can. But this isnt the point what is more difficult or even impossible for a computer. I wont tell people who call me idiot. I enjoy seeing them fail, honestly.

I'm sure you do, since you do it so well and so often yourself. And of course you don't understand why someone would say a human is far better at pattern-recognition than a computer. Because you have no clue about the problems involved, and about how humans use associative memory where a computer has no such thing. Where a human is incredibly parallel, capable of doing thousands of mental calculations at one time, while a computer is not. The list goes on and on, but since you don't grasp _any_ of this, there's no need to continue listing where you are simply wrong. One can pick almost any statement you make and categorize it as wrong and be quite accurate in general...

[Rolf]

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.

[Terry McCracken]

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

[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".