ICC for CCT11

[bob]

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?

"Ignorance unbounded" is just "more ignorance". You do realize that computers were welcomed into human tournaments in the 60's. And the 70's. And the 80's. Right? Do you know what has changed? They have gotten stronger. So much stronger that allowing a computer in pretty much turns the tournament into a fight for second place. This happened to us (Cray Blitz) when we won a tournament in 1981 that no one expected, because we had moved to markedly faster hardware. And after that event, we were not invited back again, and were denied entry when we asked, because "members now feel your program is too strong to compete with it..."

That's the issue today. Not that they are protesting against how the computer operates. Because they know that if they raise an issue (your book is too large) that we would be more than willing to play with a smaller book. I've played in human tournaments and won them with _no_ book because of a compatibility issue that was unknown until we got to the tournament site to play. So books are not the issue. Many don't use EGTBs including myself. So that isn't the issue. This is only about the difference in playing level. It is far easier to play against a human than against a computer. The computer makes you work for every move, and one mistake is death. Humans don't play like that. And they don't like it. And that is the _only_ reason for the difficulty of getting into human events. None of your hyper-imaginative issues make one bit of difference... it is all about strength. Nothing more.

I've seen human (GM) vs computer matches where the humans ask for outrageous concessions just to play. I want your program, your hardware, your opening book, and 3 months to practice against it, and you can't change a thing when the match starts. yet the human spent 3 months "changing things" as he learned which openings might give him an edge here and there. This is all about strength, and nothing else.

[bob]

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.

Why don't you just read DeGroot? He explains all of this in detail, and explains why a normal GM's memory is _not_ eidetic. Just read it.

As far as your last statement goes, if that is true then no one will ever figure out how a GM does what he does and any discussion is futile. Of course, your opinion here is pure crap. Or should I say pure bullshit... As usual.

You always have an excuse.

[Rolf]

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...

So, you as computer expert are now also the psychologist? That is strange. I dont say that all that is uninteresting. I like you always when you make such reports. But I reserve for me the right to disagree with some of your interpretations. That's all. And I claim that if you were sane enough and not a dictator, that then you could live with my opinions. But that must still be carefully examined. As a European I have no idea why you must support your great extension of knowledge with insulting someone like me. I told you long ago that I really contacted the US ambassador in Germany. And he agreed with my reserve and said that this is typically American style. Often Americans have extremest opinions. Ok, I have to live with that. Although I would prefer that you could also recogmise the efforts of someone who tends to disagree with you. While I have always stated that I have a deep respect fpr your life records. Just try to reconsider a bit what you display here for a position. Respect your critics. Give it a try.

[Rolf]

As far as your last statement goes, if that is true then no one will ever figure out how a GM does what he does and any discussion is futile. Of course, your opinion here is pure crap. Or should I say pure bullshit... As usual.

You always have an excuse.

I am the psychologist and I know about the problems of experiments. This is trivial for me. I have a simple critic against how you always present the details. You take them all at face value which is already wrong. Human beings are no machines. I have always a good laugh when you report the next naive theory. Look, human GM are perhaps the most superstitous thing you could take for research. Perhaps you can contact GM Larsen in his retreat, perhaps he would now tell you something. But the fault of de Groot was that he took the actually playing best in 1938. No chance. Just try to figure how Alekhine cheated Capablance, so that the Cuban was finally willing to play. You cant expect that in such blabla tests a true giant reveils the limits of his true talents. That is comparable to military tradition, Bob.

A last idea. You must realise how idiotic it is for a true master to get a position he then should rebuild. That is the same with the CTS. What does it mean for his true performance? He wont show. Especially at the time with SU vs the Westerners.

All IMO, Bob, if you disagree just think about what I told you about the necessary tolerance in such a forum. I can swear that I never ever claimed that I have it all correct and you are totally wrog. This is more your position, not mine. I have the balls to live with my failures. I have nothing to pretend. In special I dont need claque here who are helping me.

[Rolf]

Not that they are protesting against how the computer operates. Because they know that if they raise an issue (your book is too large) that we would be more than willing to play with a smaller book. I've played in human tournaments and won them with _no_ book because of a compatibility issue that was unknown until we got to the tournament site to play. So books are not the issue. Many don't use EGTBs including myself. So that isn't the issue. This is only about the difference in playing level. It is far easier to play against a human than against a computer. The computer makes you work for every move, and one mistake is death. Humans don't play like that. And they don't like it. And that is the _only_ reason for the difficulty of getting into human events. None of your hyper-imaginative issues make one bit of difference... it is all about strength. Nothing more.

Take all what you mention and then figure out what it means for such a super GM if he also knows that he's playing such a hypertrophic loudmouth machine that basically cant play chess but that uses your own theory. But as you say it right, it plays the chess he plays with deadly precision; not that it couldnt be outplayed, but thepreparation doesnt make sense if a player wants to have a further carreer in human classical chess.

In a way this is how I feel myself here if I dare to show up with a new/old opinion. Then I can expect that Bob gets into killer mode. Almost impossible to survive. And the moment he feels insecure and threatens to run for moderation only to get rid of a perfectly fairly posting member who unfortunately cant be called Bob's darling. Someone Bob already had called bacteria, not worth being born, ready to get the death injection at Dr Death, schizo, deep disorder personality... That is as if someone would run amok in Hadditha against you!

No, this isnt fair, this isnt about searching fror a better understanding, but most of all for letting others, even lays, have their little positive feedback from the master expert. How that abuse could ever motivate younger members to enter a debate? How could it be reasonable that perfectly sound science arguments are being disqualified as shit? Explanation: because it's NOT the truth is itself a bullshit argument a deasth slauther argument to mute a correspondent. Why should this be reasonable in such a forum?

If we then realise that such questions of the kind I am posting should be artificially created/invented in a devil's advocat manner, then it's absolutely proven that the lack of respect for an idiot like me is totally irrational, dangerous, evil and self-destructive, in sum just unwanted.

[mhull]

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.

I have a bachelors degree in computer science, yet I didn't insult you or call you names. But I did answer all your arguments. You seem only interested in debating people you can accuse of insults, because as far as I can tell, that's the only "argument" of yours that hasn't been refuted.

I take it you are tipping over your king in our polite contest?

They attach angry insults in psycho terms but they have simply no education.

I didn't know that you were educated in comptuer science!

[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.

I have a bachelors degree in computer science, yet I didn't insult you or call you names. But I did answer all your arguments. You seem only interested in debating people you can accuse of insults, because as far as I can tell, that's the only "argument" of yours that hasn't been refuted.

I take it you are tipping over your king in our polite contest?

They attach angry insults in psycho terms but they have simply no education.

I didn't know that you were educated in comptuer science!

Sorry if you had the impression that I ignored you a bit. But this wasnt meant personal. It's more something that I tought that you were no genuine member in computerchess or have I missed something?

As to your different style I agree with you. There is a different level. But here I think you acted alone in claque mode. Without personal interest.

But let me openly describe how I react on your general style. In difference to Bob Hyatt you dont show me where you are standing for. You just go into sort of dialectic to contradict me without showing what is your genuine interest in computerchess. But that is uninteresting for me. I know too well myself that I - with my posting in a tempo mode without considering too long and as if I were in a debate at a club or cocktail party - have no posting in a classical manner, let's say with the profoundness of a Derek in our CTF, if you know what I mean? I simply have no time to write this way in a foreign language. And I'm not a good writer anyway. So, from all my reading of your God debates with Stephen Ham, I know that you are a long distance runner. But this doesnt make sense for me. The same desinterest I have with Ben Hur. With no-names in general. I just dont know you in computerchess, Matt.

If you think you had answered every point I made, then I can only disagree. You are just lightly defending or explaining the computerchess side. But from Bob I already know it. What I am trying to achieve is to demonstrate to real CC experts where they potentially might have missed something in classical chess. Influencing the CC nerds this is anyway impossible for me to do. And I cant even lead a movement into a new paradigm if I dont even program and hence have no own program.

At the base, I had the impression that you just showed up to quickly destroy my "position" in supporting Bob, which is a nonsense because I have no position that you could destroy as you might have realised as I could read here. In other words I see that you dont get why I debate at all with so little material or data or own program. ChrisW always understood me! But this is a cultural problem methinks.

[bhlangonijr]

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.

I have a bachelors degree in computer science, yet I didn't insult you or call you names. But I did answer all your arguments. You seem only interested in debating people you can accuse of insults, because as far as I can tell, that's the only "argument" of yours that hasn't been refuted.

I take it you are tipping over your king in our polite contest?

They attach angry insults in psycho terms but they have simply no education.

I didn't know that you were educated in comptuer science!

Sorry if you had the impression that I ignored you a bit. But this wasnt meant personal. It's more something that I tought that you were no genuine member in computerchess or have I missed something?

As to your different style I agree with you. There is a different level. But here I think you acted alone in claque mode. Without personal interest.

But let me openly describe how I react on your general style. In difference to Bob Hyatt you dont show me where you are standing for. You just go into sort of dialectic to contradict me without showing what is your genuine interest in computerchess. But that is uninteresting for me. I know too well myself that I - with my posting in a tempo mode without considering too long and as if I were in a debate at a club or cocktail party - have no posting in a classical manner, let's say with the profoundness of a Derek in our CTF, if you know what I mean? I simply have no time to write this way in a foreign language. And I'm not a good writer anyway. So, from all my reading of your God debates with Stephen Ham, I know that you are a long distance runner. But this doesnt make sense for me. The same desinterest I have with Ben Hur. With no-names in general. I just dont know you in computerchess, Matt.

If you think you had answered every point I made, then I can only disagree. You are just lightly defending or explaining the computerchess side. But from Bob I already know it. What I am trying to achieve is to demonstrate to real CC experts where they potentially might have missed something in classical chess. Influencing the CC nerds this is anyway impossible for me to do. And I cant even lead a movement into a new paradigm if I dont even program and hence have no own program.

At the base, I had the impression that you just showed up to quickly destroy my "position" in supporting Bob, which is a nonsense because I have no position that you could destroy as you might have realised as I could read here. In other words I see that you dont get why I debate at all with so little material or data or own program. ChrisW always understood me! But this is a cultural problem methinks.

My God! You must be eating a rotten sauerkraut...

My name really is Ben-Hur. I have also bachelors degree in computer science and started master's degree in artificial intelligence. Anyway I don't know what you have to do with it.

I guess nobody is supporting you in your lengthy-boring-nonsense posts. Do not hide yourself behind the fake image of a deep thinker. You are just disturbing. What in the planet makes you think you know something special that all CC experts had missed? Honestly I couldn't take any interesting "insights" from your lengthy posts. It's mainly trivia, empty ramblings and polemics.

I'm sorry for that. It's my opinion about the facts. Not insults ad hominem at all.

Take care. I wish the best to you.

[Rolf]

My God! You must be eating a rotten sauerkraut...

My name really is Ben-Hur. I have also bachelors degree in computer science and started master's degree in artificial intelligence. Anyway I don't know what you have to do with it.

I guess nobody is supporting you in your lengthy-boring-nonsense posts. Do not hide yourself behind the fake image of a deep thinker. You are just disturbing. What in the planet makes you think you know something special that all CC experts had missed? Honestly I couldn't take any interesting "insights" from your lengthy posts. It's mainly trivia, empty ramblings and polemics.

I'm sorry for that. It's my opinion about the facts. Not insults ad hominem at all.

Take care. I wish the best to you.

What made you believe that you had anything to do with this debate?

I am here since 1996. I never met Ben-Hur. Never. So, let's see, you might well have not existed yet under this name in the field, right?

But are you at least educated enough to realise that such a nobody, from nowhere, has absolutely no business to scapegoat one specific participant here and informing him of his unimportance?

You claim a bachelor in computer science and that you started a master, but what has that in any regard to do with the debate here about chess and human chess players in their relation with CC and my personal questions as a chess player and user of the software?

Do you insinuate like Hyatt that this here should be a place for exclusive programmers in chess and their relatives? Or is it allowed for the plebs to ask questions? Or should this be restricted to bachelors of that science of computers? What is your intention when you censor my contributions as boring? How could that happen that you felt attracted by such boring stuff at all?

Why dont you ask at least questions from your perspective, if you dont understand mine? Then I would have got exactly what I want. Because in difference to such bachelors I dont know exactly the thoughts of the engineers of chess and why they mistreat the field of human chess and its representatives. I''m still searching for the deeper reasons. Perhaps it's exactly what you are displaying so well. Namely the arrogance that is fed by the mystification of the higher meaning of mere button pushing. Still searching.

Perhaps the next bachelor, after Matt and Ben-Hur, can do better. All the very best.

[mclane]

rolf is known for this behaviour in newsgroups.

your observations concerning him are right.
only we others gave up for years.