Rolf wrote:bob wrote:
I don't disagree, except for memorization. I know literally hundreds of chess players, from 1000 USCF to GMs. I have played all of these players at some point in time. And once you pass the 1500-1600 level players, they will play their openings instantly, until they reach some point where either their memorized line runs out, or I make an unexpected move that requires analysis before proceeding. To claim that humans don't memorize opening moves (and their opening analysis preparation) is the mark of a patzer, IMHO. It is just a normal part of chess. Better players know more openings and know them deeper and broader.
Rolf simply doesn't know which end is up, here. As usual.
Bob, like Gerold or whoever, all those who claim that GM, I dont talk about patzer like most here like me, *memorize* opening lines and do that for years, meant, before they are finally mature GM, all are totally wrong.
Let me explain this triviality for me as a psychologist. A potential GM is early an eidetic. Which means he can learn/memorize the known theory in half a year maximum. But he wont do it, only a patzer would do this hoping he could become a champion.
First false statement. See the book by DeGroot and you will discover that "not all GMs are Eidetic".
It's very telling that Bob believes in such nonsense although he claims he is in continual contact with GM.
It is very telling that you make statements that _nobody_ here agrees with. Why don't you ask a GM or two? I can point you to some that I talk with. Or you can find your own, if you happen to know any.
The trith is that GM in their development must understand the moves in all the lines. This means analysing the moves with their complete middle game and endgame implications. Otherwise you cant become GM. But simply memorizing the moves would only help beat a patzer but not a true GM! Because the difference between GM is how deep they understand the game as such.
Sorry, but a GM doesn't remember every opening position and its "endgame implications". He does know that this opening system leads to this type of middlegame attacking chances, and this type of endgame prospects. But he _does_ remember opening moves. You may as well stop claiming otherwise, in your infantile attempt to re-open a debate that even FIDE closed years ago about whether a computer plays "legal chess" or not. It does.
Memorizing alone doesnt mean a thing in professional chess, I mean the moves of the know theory. A true GM has his own theory that he's analysing over his whole life and he wont tell others. For sure a GM wont tell Bob what he's analysing.
Never said "memorizing alone is everything." Crafty doesn't just memorize opening moves. It remembers win/lose/draw percentages, results it has obtained by playing this opening in the past, how this opening compares to other similar openings with respect to expected / actual outcomes, etc. You simply don't "get it" because you don't know what you are talking about and you don't know anything about how computers actually play chess and / or use their openings books.
\
Like a single game of chess is much more than just the played moves, but all the analyses around each single move.
But this is something a normal patzer cant understand. I'm a patzer but psyhological studies allowed me to understand how the brain of a GM might function.
I agree that you are a patzer, in many ways. But I don't agree with any of your other ramblings...
Your entire argument seems to be that a computer can't play legal chess because it doesn't "understand" the game, whether it be opening book or anything else. It isn't "human" and therefore it can't possibly be a "GM".
Fortunately, almost everyone on the planet, yourself excepted, doesn't have such an irrational view of AI and chess/computer-chess. This is about results, not about how those results are obtained. Your point is completely irrelevant.
as it almost always is, of course..
