Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:29:34 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 07:59:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 06, 2003 at 20:31:47, Albert Silver wrote: > >>>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!" >> >>I think this statement is hopelessly naive. I think you have no idea what you >>are talking about. Do you actually know any GMs by any chance? Seen how they >>work or prepare? I know several. Some are indeed as meticulous as you make out. >>I know some others who go about preparing in a few minutes by just seeing some >>games in a line they would like to play. Some do even less than that. Their >>confidence in their ability to handle any problems that might occur during the >>game is the key reason IMO. >> >> Albert > >You again! You know what I think about you. In free usenet you lost all "games" >but before you had to sign your loss officially you chickened out. I will never >forget that. Here we have a different situation. Here you are not allowed to >insult (well - you might still be because you belong to the untouchables...). >You claim you know GM. Fine for you. You mean you also understand them? Tatata. > >Your mean way of disputing is clear. You called me naive. Ok, not a direct >insult, but here in the question where already Bob was proven to be wrong, you >show up and want to make an easy shot and win. But as I said, you won't "win" a >dispute not in a life time in my present. And I will show you how primitive and >logically uneducated you reasoned here again. > >Look, Bob, who also knows many GM, even Wchamps like Botvinnik, believes that GM >- and he said that in a dispute with me to make the point that comps, when they >use foreign data WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT RESP. WITHOUT EVEN BEING ABLE TO >UNDERSTAND IT, they just do what human GM do all the time here and there - >played down a line, they > >a) did get from foreign sources without even checking, just by memorizing and > >b) without further checking during the game. > >I refutated this nonsense. > >Now you should already see where the key error is in your presentation above. >You simply jump on me as if my former statement would be the complete version of >my refutation (of Bob's theory). You jump on me and declare pompously that you >knew GM and they would rely on their talents in the game. Did I doubt that? > >You know GM and perhaps you also heard some stories, but your lack is not lack >of GM but lack of own thinking. > >Let me therefore explain and then you will see exactly the place where Albert is >standing. > >What is a GM? >============== > >In his development to become GM a player mostly analysed his own performances at >home. This is the most important activity besides playing of course. In these >_years_ a future GM has created his so called 'repertoire'. That huge creation >is only possible because a GM has an extremely great memory. Normal mortals >simply can't imagine what that means. Perhaps the spread could be understood in >these TV shows where eidetics demonstrate the power of their photographic >memory. NOTE: Such a memory has nothing to do with memory techiques because that >would only mean that you make a picture of the new "words" instead one of the >original data. So attention when such crooks begin to talk about travelling in >their garden or streets to memorize the huge quantity of data. NOTE: >photographic doesn't mean memorizing. It mean CLICK and you have the whole page >with say thousands of umbers i your head. Period. ---- > >So, with such a "tool" in general you become GM. Now we come to Albert. As a >beginner in these fields he imagined a GM who got some notes with new games, >looks at them for a couple of minutes and then plays a new line "just to test it >in a game". And Albert thinks that he could contradict my statements. Not so! >Because Albert made a big, very big, error. He saw the GM as if he had a white >and empty paper in his head/memory. In reality the GM simply organized the input >of the few games into his "repertoire"! And not enough, to make it short and to >end this debate, all GM then of course analyse the crucial positions during the >new game. It might take them 15 minutes or in extreme cases 60 minutes but then >it's done as if they had analysed it at home. In that case I see no reason not to allow computer to remember lines not for playing them in 0 seconds but for better analysis when they can extend the right lines. There are tactical traps in the opening that computer may fall into because they do not see deep enough but if you give them to extend the book lines they may see the trap. Note that I believe that there are cases when GM's play in 0 seconds lines that they do not understand when they believe that they can understand during the game what are the ideas of the line and it is dependent on the player. Uri
This page took 0 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.