Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:59:57 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
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.
------------
Now I must apologize! In real I love people like Albert. Nobody's input here in
a debate is useless! Because a good expert can use even the wrongest input to
explain his point. That exactly is the advantage of such clubs against books.
Because there you must do all the thinkig yourself as a reader. Here you can
follow the reasoning of an expert and then you learn to reason properly. A good
expert needs the joker so badly! Others even call the joker the devil's advocat.
So I would like to give the reader the following moral:
If you think someone has written something stupid, just try to understand the
original question and then ask yourself if the other author might just have been
short in time or perhaps he might have been the joker who wanted to make you
think on your own. Therefore don't call him naive!
:)
Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.