ICC for CCT11

[Rolf]

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.

It's very telling that Bob believes in such nonsense although he claims he is in continual contact with GM.

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.

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.

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.

Your point is irrelevant. A patzer is a legal chessplayer -- memorized moves and all -- no matter how weak, no matter how much it doesn't understand in its "patzerness". If a chess program plays its openings like a patzer, and the rest of the game like a GM, that's no violation of rules or ethics or anything, neither does it mean it's not a complete chessplayer.

Simple.

Please don't ruin these discussions by introducing actual facts into them.

Thanks...

Matt is totally wrong on this topic. I must insist: a chess program cheats (compared to the FIDE rules) because it looks into material, book etc, what no human player is allowed to use, in special he cant use computer help during the game. This is so basic and trivial that I cant imagine why we all missed that for over 4 decades. Computer vs computer of course is ok.

[mhull]

Matt is totally wrong on this topic. I must insist: a chess program cheats (compared to the FIDE rules) because it looks into material, book etc, what no human player is allowed to use, in special he cant use computer help during the game. This is so basic and trivial that I cant imagine why we all missed that for over 4 decades. Computer vs computer of course is ok.

I copy moves from Horowitz, NewInChess or interesting games to my internal storage (neurons) and "play openings like a patzer". Computers copy moves from the same sources into their internal storage and play them in the same way. This is so trivial that I can't imagine how you missed it.

[bob]

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.

It's very telling that Bob believes in such nonsense although he claims he is in continual contact with GM.

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.

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.

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.

Your point is irrelevant. A patzer is a legal chessplayer -- memorized moves and all -- no matter how weak, no matter how much it doesn't understand in its "patzerness". If a chess program plays its openings like a patzer, and the rest of the game like a GM, that's no violation of rules or ethics or anything, neither does it mean it's not a complete chessplayer.

Simple.

Please don't ruin these discussions by introducing actual facts into them.

Thanks...

Matt is totally wrong on this topic. I must insist: a chess program cheats (compared to the FIDE rules) because it looks into material, book etc, what no human player is allowed to use, in special he cant use computer help during the game. This is so basic and trivial that I cant imagine why we all missed that for over 4 decades. Computer vs computer of course is ok.

You can insist all you want. But you are still wrong. My program has no access to printed materials. It does have access to its own enormous memory. The reason it was not missed is that most everyone "gets this". Humans can memorize openings. Computers can do it far better. Computers can't "generalize" knowledge, humans can do it extremely well.

You have tried to hijack this thread _twice_ now. It was originally about where the best location to hold CCT events is. You turned it into a deep blue rant, and now a computers-cant-play-legal-chess rant.

why don't you just fade away???

[Rolf]

Matt is totally wrong on this topic. I must insist: a chess program cheats (compared to the FIDE rules) because it looks into material, book etc, what no human player is allowed to use, in special he cant use computer help during the game. This is so basic and trivial that I cant imagine why we all missed that for over 4 decades. Computer vs computer of course is ok.

I copy moves from Horowitz, NewInChess or interesting games to my internal storage (neurons) and "play openings like a patzer". Computers copy moves from the same sources into their internal storage and play them in the same way. This is so trivial that I can't imagine how you missed it.

A GM doesnt play this way, Matt, excuse me. A GM I have mentioned it many times plays variations he has analysed, understood and evaluated. Patzers and programs just copy what they have stored which is simply non-creative chess.

Matt, perhaps you are a bit cooler than Bob. Tell me what you think about this scenario:

your computer uses his stored human knowledge what he cant understand. I as opponent have tomes of opening books in my different storages. I have three secretaries who support me during a game. En plus I have three computers who do analyses of the position. In the ending I use table bases.

Are you ready to play me? Do you agree with me that I violate the FIDE rules of human chess?

But if I do it then all the computers do it too, all the Fritz and Crafty of this World. If they play against each other then it's ok, but not if they imposter that they could have any rights to challenge our best human chess players, our super GM. These computers are made to help us human players in our preparation. But everything else is nonsense and unfair and evil.

[Rolf]

You can insist all you want. But you are still wrong. My program has no access to printed materials. It does have access to its own enormous memory. The reason it was not missed is that most everyone "gets this". Humans can memorize openings. Computers can do it far better. Computers can't "generalize" knowledge, humans can do it extremely well.

You have tried to hijack this thread _twice_ now. It was originally about where the best location to hold CCT events is. You turned it into a deep blue rant, and now a computers-cant-play-legal-chess rant.

why don't you just fade away???

Stop spreading untrue allegations, Bob!

The CCC actually has some thirty (30) threads on page 1 the most actual one. In a single (1) thread I comment because I have my personal opinions and you then accuse me of disturbing this here in CCC? Why do you answer me at all? Only to insult me or because I have something to say that you want to discuss? I thought we had the same rights with our opinions on chess.

The you are also wrong that my positions have nothing to do with the topic of the CCT on ICC which allegedly is a progress because now the play is not depending on operating hands. Coming from the DB2 debate I proposed the creation of a playing machine entity that is completely independent of cheating possibilities. Therefore the topic DB2 vs Kasparov with the mistreatment against Kasparov by the IBM operators is important. Becuse it speaks against these computerchess people who have lost contact with human chess and FIDE.

Secondly the question of legal FIDE chess. Yes, I claim that the actual computer players are violating the rules of FIDE. But I am sure that entities could be created where a development happens from scratch to perhaps GM status over some months and years. These entities can then play in human tournaments. For now this is impossible because the machine now have extra rights which is called cheating in human chess because they have illegal help during a game. It's all so easy.

[bob]

You can insist all you want. But you are still wrong. My program has no access to printed materials. It does have access to its own enormous memory. The reason it was not missed is that most everyone "gets this". Humans can memorize openings. Computers can do it far better. Computers can't "generalize" knowledge, humans can do it extremely well.

You have tried to hijack this thread _twice_ now. It was originally about where the best location to hold CCT events is. You turned it into a deep blue rant, and now a computers-cant-play-legal-chess rant.

why don't you just fade away???

Stop spreading untrue allegations, Bob!

The CCC actually has some thirty (30) threads on page 1 the most actual one. In a single (1) thread I comment because I have my personal opinions and you then accuse me of disturbing this here in CCC? Why do you answer me at all? Only to insult me or because I have something to say that you want to discuss? I thought we had the same rights with our opinions on chess.

The you are also wrong that my positions have nothing to do with the topic of the CCT on ICC which allegedly is a progress because now the play is not depending on operating hands. Coming from the DB2 debate I proposed the creation of a playing machine entity that is completely independent of cheating possibilities. Therefore the topic DB2 vs Kasparov with the mistreatment against Kasparov by the IBM operators is important. Becuse it speaks against these computerchess people who have lost contact with human chess and FIDE.

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.

CCT is _already_ an automated event. It is _impossible_ to eliminate all cheating possibilities. And DB vs Kasparov has _nothing_ to do with CCT events. 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.

I don't know what you mean by "people that have lost contact". Crafty has played in FIDE-sanctioned events in the past, and plays by the rules as stated by FIDE. At least _their_ arbiters agree, and that carries a lot more weight than your irrational opinion on the subject.

Secondly the question of legal FIDE chess. Yes, I claim that the actual computer players are violating the rules of FIDE. But I am sure that entities could be created where a development happens from scratch to perhaps GM status over some months and years. These entities can then play in human tournaments. For now this is impossible because the machine now have extra rights which is called cheating in human chess because they have illegal help during a game. It's all so easy.

You are free to claim whatever you want, but it isn't true. FIDE has accepted computers and one can even join if willing to pay the rather ridiculous registration fee to register a computer program with FIDE. It would seem that if _they_ accept this, your arguments become moot. Since fide decisions trump your oddball claims every time.

[bob]

Your point is irrelevant. A patzer is a legal chessplayer -- memorized moves and all -- no matter how weak, no matter how much it doesn't understand in its "patzerness". If a chess program plays its openings like a patzer, and the rest of the game like a GM, that's no violation of rules or ethics or anything, neither does it mean it's not a complete chessplayer.

Simple.

Matt, you show up a bit late. Of course he's a regular chess player but NOT a GM that was the point of the debate. No GM memorizes moves. This is the inhibited perception of a patzer who has it all confused that tells Bob to think this way.

It's then twice funny when I am speaking of GM and Bob comes running with another example of Crafty who is everything, perhaps a rebel without a cause, but not a GM. <g>

And please promise me, do not enter G-d in the debate here. Promised? <g>

Further, I didnt say that a program plays the opening like a patzer. Patzer is a title in human chess that we amateurs must be worthy of to be named this way.

A program nowadays, especially Crafty, does cheat the FIDE rules. Crafty misunderstood Darwin, Matt!! (In Rybka, I must admit, you can almost feel the hand/design of G-d a bit.)

Again, why don't you find a good library, and have them 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_. So that pig won't fly. He found that GM players _do_ memorize moves. And sequences of moves. Again, contrary to your ramblings. Crafty knows _nothing_ about Darwin. Which has nothing to do with playing chess anyway.

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...

[Rolf]

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.

[bhlangonijr]

Matt is totally wrong on this topic. I must insist: a chess program cheats (compared to the FIDE rules) because it looks into material, book etc, what no human player is allowed to use, in special he cant use computer help during the game. This is so basic and trivial that I cant imagine why we all missed that for over 4 decades. Computer vs computer of course is ok.

I copy moves from Horowitz, NewInChess or interesting games to my internal storage (neurons) and "play openings like a patzer". Computers copy moves from the same sources into their internal storage and play them in the same way. This is so trivial that I can't imagine how you missed it.

A GM doesnt play this way, Matt, excuse me. A GM I have mentioned it many times plays variations he has analysed, understood and evaluated. Patzers and programs just copy what they have stored which is simply non-creative chess.

Matt, perhaps you are a bit cooler than Bob. Tell me what you think about this scenario:

your computer uses his stored human knowledge what he cant understand. I as opponent have tomes of opening books in my different storages. I have three secretaries who support me during a game. En plus I have three computers who do analyses of the position. In the ending I use table bases.

Are you ready to play me? Do you agree with me that I violate the FIDE rules of human chess?

But if I do it then all the computers do it too, all the Fritz and Crafty of this World. If they play against each other then it's ok, but not if they imposter that they could have any rights to challenge our best human chess players, our super GM. These computers are made to help us human players in our preparation. But everything else is nonsense and unfair and evil.

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.

[Rolf]

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.

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.

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.