Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:58:58 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2003 at 13:10:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 05, 2003 at 15:38:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 05, 2003 at 15:14:14, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On February 05, 2003 at 14:04:49, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>>People here (also Bob) claimed that also masters and GM would do that all the >>>>>time. Only they have a good memory and don't need a book to save the lines. But >>>>>is that really true? Do GM play on a base of other experts??? Of course not. >>>> >>>>That is a statement declaring your ignorance. >>> >>>Are you a deeper thinker than me? That is the question. You will quickly see >>>that I did not even start to discuss anything serious with you. Here in CCC it's >>>a real goal to show you some science. >>> >>> >>> >>>>There are SO MANY examples that it >>>>boggles the mind. >>> >>> >>>Not mine. Because I think instead of copy & pasting. You are just working with >>>quotes and anecdotes. Please think for yourself then we can discuss. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Here are two quick ones just for your entertainment: >>> >>>Not joking: I like your examples, but they can't prove your fantasies. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>In Tal's autobiographical book, he relates an episode where prior to playing a >>>>round in a tournament he had received a new issue of a Russian chess magazine. >>>>In it was an article publishing analysis by a master player known to Tal. He >>>>looked over the article rather quickly and thought the line was good to play. As >>>>coincidence went, his opponent obliged and Tal quickly found himself completely >>>>lost! Tal was very upset and called up the master (I think it was the magazine's >>>>editor) to complain on the bogus analysis. The master explained that had Tal >>>>actually turned to the next page he'd have seen that the line was refuted >>>>exactly as his opponent played! >>> >>> >>>Albert, come on! Did you know Tal? Do you believe all what is written in a book? >>>The wording alone makes me laugh. Tal looked quickly, but - to fool the average >>>public - therefore he couldn't understand the real quality of the line. ROFL. >>> >>>Please give me more of such anecdotes. I like it. And I persist: I'm not joking! >>> >>> >>>> >>>>As you know, Anand has a game that he lost in a record 6-7 moves. >>> >>> >>>Uhm, Me too! :) >>> >>> >>>>Do you know >>>>how or why? >>> >>> >>>Self-hypnosis! >>> >>> >>> >>>>Anand himself explained that he saw the opening analyzed in the >>>>Informant and didn't bother checking any of the analysis. As a consequence he >>>>fell for a 2-move tactic that won a piece. Even a genius such as himself >>>>followed the moves so blindly he failed to see a simple 2-move shot. >>> >>>First of all Anand is not a genius. He's a genial gambler. But as a serious >>>chessplayer he lost me. ;)) >>> >>>And then, didn't you know that Anand simply proved Einstein's relativity theory? >>>Because, Albert, when you play in such a high speed like Anand, almost with >>>light speed, then you become a 1200 (!!) player for some _short_ moments. >>>Microseconds! That is against all known chess laws, but it is a very old >>>Psychology Law! >>> >>>Yours truly, >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>I can only say that it is not illogical to remember things without understanding >>Suppose that you are a GM with good memory and you have a friend that is also a >>GM and you play for the same team(can be the same country in the olympiad). >> >>Suppose that your friend prepared some novelties that you can understand the >>logic behind them but understanding takes time and you have not the time. >> >>You can do one of 2 things: >>1)Read the notebook of your friend and remember it in 2 hours(the notebook may >>include some hundreds of possible lines). >> >>2)Trying to understand the reason that the notes are correct but it will take >>you many hours and you have not that time for the next game. >> >>I can tell you that if you trust your friend then choosing 1 make sense because >>after you play the line that you remember you may think and understand the idea >>behind it. >> >>Uri > > >Aw that never happens. :) > >However, at the 1983 (or 1984) fredkin match, four humans and four computers >(computers >were Belle, Cray Blitz, Nuchess (chess 4.x successor) and Duchess) one of the >humans (all >were around master-level I think) found that Nuchess still had the same book >used in 1976 >when chess 4.x lost to Chaos in the famous Nxe6 positional sacrifice line. He >followed that >line and beat Nuchess easily. He told the other players and in the next round, >Nuchess again >had black for odd reasons, and _that_ player beat it in _exactly_ the same way. > >But we all _know_ that he didn't play the opening from memory. He played the >opening >by finding the moves himself over the board. :) > >I've told Rolf hundreds of times that GM players _do_ simply rely =========================================================== >on rote memory in many cases. ================================= :))))) Bob, this is here my thesis! Don't spoil the party, please. Of course we all rely on rote memory in "many cases". :) But we two had a totally different difference. You said: "GM play certain openings comparable to a computer that they play down the moves by heart. Also in serious tournament games. No, more! They often play lines they saw or heard somewhere from other masters, and they did _never_ see them before or analysed them at home, and they play down those lines, like a computer, without even reflecting the moves!" Against this layman's nonsense I said: "GM play lines they have analysed at home, but _never_ lines they only saw or heard somewhere, _without_ ever having analysed their sense and their outcome into middle game till the ending!" Bob, this is trivial. If GM told you different he took you for a ride. Also your example above even I could do that, no master needed. But honestly you tell us a terrible story! I for one find such a play dishonest. It's so mean. Where these masters CC lovers? Rolf Tueschen >He doesn't want to believe it, even when GM players _themselves_ >say this >is true. > >Why he refuses to accept their own words is beyond me...
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.