| |
Main
Date: 06 Dec 2007 14:48:41
From: raylopez99
Subject: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
.
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2008 10:57:35
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> Discover and enjoy the infinitely deep and astral beauty of GO !
> You will enjoy it as with no other game and you will regret it.
> Pure happiness !
> JJ
Should read:
You will enjoy it as with no other game and you will NEVER regret it.
Pure happiness !
JJ
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2008 10:49:03
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
What is the difference between chess and go ? Which game is superior ?
I used to played chess when I was young (including tournaments) in my
home country as a junior, then learned to play go when I moved to
Japan and lived there for many years.
I definitely prefer GO, a much superior game, philosophically and
psychologically.
Western chess, Japanese shogi, Chinese xiangqi are related games in
which you win the game by killing your opponent. You wipe him out of
the field.
In the go game, you let your opponent live, as your neighbor and
fellow human, expressing empathy toward him, the only difference being
that you just need as little as half-a-point territory more than than
managed to control to win the game.
You will never win any go game if you are aggressive like in chess,
looking only for a kill and being greedy for as much territory as you
can grab. You can only get something if you give something in
exchange.
Now, let me tell you an anecdote (taking place in Japan) that should
readily and definitely explain the difference between the two games:
Sometime in the middle on the twentieth century, a journalist visited
a Japanese 9-dan go professional (the name of which is irrelevant) for
an interview.
Now, said the journalist, you reached the top rank as a professional
go player, but I understand you are quite a good player at shogi too
( Japanese chess), in which you reached the professional 5-dan rank.
Of the two games, please tell me which is, in your opinion, the best
game ever invented by the human kind ?
The game of chess (shogi), answered the professional player.
I do not understand at all... said the journalist surprised and
somewhat confused. Since you reached a much higher rank in go, I would
have assumed you'd say go.
Well, my friend, you asked me which was the best game invented by the
human kind, answered the professional player. As for the game of go,
it was invented by THE GODS !
Discover and enjoy the infinitely deep and astral beauty of GO !
You will enjoy it as with no other game and you will regret it.
Pure happiness !
JJ
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jan 2008 19:26:18
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
[email protected] wrote:
> I definitely prefer GO, a much superior game, philosophically
> and psychologically.
>
> Western chess, Japanese shogi, Chinese xiangqi are related
> games in which you win the game by killing your opponent.
> You wipe him out of the field.
Not true at all. In each of these cognitive skill boardgames, as
with Go, your opponent lives to fight another day. Such traits are
among those which comprise the essence of civility. Similarly,
Go can be considered as a game of empty-space attrition, or
empty-space labelling and definition, where your opponent's
claims to empty-space are being annihilated and attritted.
That well-known film _The_Go_Masters_ depicts a scene
where the Japanese military assassinates a Chinese Go player.
Surely such aspects would not speak well for the history of Go.
> In the go game, you let your opponent live, as your neighbor and
> fellow human, expressing empathy toward him, the only difference
> being that you just need as little as half-a-point territory more than
> than managed to control to win the game.
Some situtions call for opponent reduction into smaller life
though, of course, rules of Go also prescribe for stone captures.
> You will never win any go game if you are aggressive like in chess,
> looking only for a kill and being greedy for as much territory as you
> can grab. You can only get something if you give something in
> exchange.
Against high handicaps wins might involve looking for a kill.
> [ ... ] Of the two games, please tell me which is, in your opinion,
> the best game ever invented by the human kind ?
>
> The game of chess (shogi), answered the professional player.
>
> I do not understand at all... said the journalist surprised and
> somewhat confused. Since you reached a much higher rank in go,
> I would have assumed you'd say go.
>
> Well, my friend, you asked me which was the best game invented
> by the human kind, answered the professional player. As for the
> game of go, it was invented by THE GODS !
Fallacy by appeal to authority. Not all Gods are worthy
of being worshipped. Some Gods are merely full of anger,
jealousy, malice and injustice.
> Discover and enjoy the infinitely deep and astral beauty of GO !
> You will enjoy it as with no other game and you will regret it.
> Pure happiness !
>
> Should read:
> You will enjoy it as with no other game and you will NEVER
> regret it. Pure happiness !
As with Chess, happiness for the players who win but
with frustration for the players who encounter many losses.
Far more similarities among game players than differences
among the games they play. _Stratego_ is a major source
for happiness among junior players, where they find parity.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------
VANISHING OF THE BEES
http://www.vanishingbees.com/
-----------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2007 03:09:15
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> (f) Chess Players are highly respected in the West,
> where it really counts, whereas Go Players are
> relegated to obscure and remote Asian corners.
This is my favorite reason - 'Go players are based in far away places
we know nothing about, so Chess is a superior game'. Can't fault that
logic.
Felix
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2007 09:13:22
From: Michael Alford
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
[email protected] wrote:
>> (f) Chess Players are highly respected in the West,
>> where it really counts, whereas Go Players are
>> relegated to obscure and remote Asian corners.
>
> This is my favorite reason - 'Go players are based in far away places
> we know nothing about, so Chess is a superior game'. Can't fault that
> logic.
>
> Felix
You must mean logical fallacy, this is an obvious non sequitur. :)
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2007 06:40:12
From: Guy Macon
Subject: DON'T Play Chess at Get[spam]
|
Spammy Sanny wrote:
>
>On Dec 17, 3:24 am, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Chessis easy to learn & play than Go.Chesscan be memorized and
>> > learnt. Go has nothing to memorize.
>>
>> Not true. My son (6 years) learnt Go two year ago andchess3 months
>> ago. For him waschesstwo years ago very complicated, but Go is very
>> easy game for children. After several minutes of learning, children
>> are able to play Atari Go and after several games they can play full
>> Go.
>>
>> Butchess(and mainly XiangQi) is more fun and more popular. There is
>> excelent software for children (Fritz und Fertig). Now he want to
playchessevery day.
>
>He can also play Chess at Get[spam] for free.
>
>Play Chess at: http://www.Get[spam].com/Chess.html
>
>Bye
>Sanny
Please stop spamming your website. It was bad enough when you were
starting three threads a day just to advertise, but now you are
inserting your ads into random threads. Please stop doing that.
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2007 22:21:39
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Play Chess at GetClub
|
On Dec 17, 3:24 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> >Chessis easy to learn & play than Go.Chesscan be memorized and
> > learnt. Go has nothing to memorize.
>
> Not true. My son (6 years) learnt Go two year ago andchess3 months
> ago. For him waschesstwo years ago very complicated, but Go is very
> easy game for children. After several minutes of learning, children
> are able to play Atari Go and after several games they can play full
> Go.
>
> Butchess(and mainly XiangQi) is more fun and more popular. There is
> excelent software for children (Fritz und Fertig). Now he want to playchessevery day.
He can also play Chess at GetClub for free.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Bye
Sanny
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2007 14:24:43
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Play Chess at GetClub
|
> Chess is easy to learn & play than Go. Chess can be memorized and
> learnt. Go has nothing to memorize.
Not true. My son (6 years) learnt Go two year ago and chess 3 months
ago. For him was chess two years ago very complicated, but Go is very
easy game for children. After several minutes of learning, children
are able to play Atari Go and after several games they can play full
Go.
But chess (and mainly XiangQi) is more fun and more popular. There is
excelent software for children (Fritz und Fertig). Now he want to play
chess every day.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 08:47:18
From: Mef
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 13, 10:13 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> >> Capturing the king really is forbidden in a game of chess under
> >> the FIDE laws. It is never a legal move of any game.
>
> > It could be an illegal move
>
> It is *always* an illegal move. Which is to say, it is forbidden by
> the laws of the game.
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that it's an impossible move
rather than an illegal one? As I understand it the rules never
expressly
forbid the capture of the king, they just never allow a circumstance
where
the issue might come up (Given that if there were a board position
where
one player would be able to capture the the other's king the game has
ended
from an illegal move).
Cheers,
Mef
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2007 12:05:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
Mef <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It is *always* an illegal move. Which is to say, it is forbidden by
>> the laws of the game.
>
> Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that it's an impossible move
> rather than an illegal one?
No! FIDE Article 1: `` `capturing' the opponent's king [is] not
allowed.''
> (Given that if there were a board position where one player would be
> able to capture the the other's king the game has ended from an
> illegal move).
Not quite. In blitz, it is still required to claim the win after
one's opponent makes an illegal move.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Miniature Mexi-Painting (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a Renaissance masterpiece that
comes from Mexico but you can hold in
it your hand!
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 14:42:44
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 12, 2:31 pm, [email protected] (-) wrote:
> For "Justin" it seemed that a
> wider context offered more persuasion than a narrowed context;
> if so, then the wider context would be that of youthful experience.
> Owing to a sense of balance, whether Chess or Go, the problem of
> shoring up vulnerability produces attentiveness to weaker/missing
> aspects, i.e. an effective offense constructed upon sound defense.
> Data from winners of some tournament present only the half-picture.
I'm not sure I follow but you do have some sort of valid point I'm
sure.
>
> illustrating quality of fresh insight. Disregarding anomalous outliers,
> considering statistical distributions, the average age of powerhouse
> Go Players continues to be older than average age of powerhouse
> Chess Players, overall. Thereby Go obtains a society of discipleship
> where the role of Teacher is crucial. If you prefer the hierarchical
> model of human relationship you can argue "superiority" that way.
Yes, very interesting. Perhaps also that Asian culture
(apprenticeship, respect for the old) and the fact electronic teachers
suck in Go is another reason that Go has a "society of discipleship".
RL
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 13:16:58
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 12, 10:22 am, [email protected] (-) wrote:
> > "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >: It's "superior" for the young people, also an experience
> >: to which all may recollect, and thereby a common context.
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You still haven't said how it's superior.
>
> More people have the experience of being young than old.
> So the context is less narrow for young people than for old.
>
> - regards
> - jb
This argument cuts both ways, if you're making an actuarial argument
that young people have more time before them and therefore can enjoy
more things than old people. This is because the economic value of
old people is fixed and certain, while for young people it's unknown
(that is, the value of the person could be great, or he could turn out
to be a cannibal like Jeffrey Dahmer and therefore have negative
value). For this reason insurance companies typically don't give much
of a actuarial policy to the very young or the very old. So I would
say it's kind of a wash, though if you don't introduce money into the
equation** then from a strict utilitarian point of view younger people
have more utility than older people, since they have more time before
them, and your point is valid.
**introducing money into the equation is why children get poorer
treatment than older people (since their economic value is less).
RL
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 22:31:43
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
>>> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>: It's "superior" for the young people, also an experience
>>>: to which all may recollect, and thereby a common context.
>> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You still haven't said how it's superior.
> (-) wrote:
>> More people have the experience of being young than old.
>> So the context is less narrow for young people than for old.
raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> This argument cuts both ways, if you're making an actuarial argument
> that young people have more time before them and therefore can enjoy
> more things than old people. This is because the economic value of
> old people is fixed and certain, while for young people it's unknown
> (that is, the value of the person could be great, or he could turn out
> to be a cannibal like Jeffrey Dahmer and therefore have negative
> value). For this reason insurance companies typically don't give
> much of a actuarial policy to the very young or the very old. So I
> would say it's kind of a wash, though if you don't introduce money
> into the equation** then from a strict utilitarian point of view younger
> people have more utility than older people, since they have more
> time before them, and your point is valid.
>
> **introducing money into the equation is why children get poorer
> treatment than older people (since their economic value is less).
I do not doubt that jury verdicts might quibble on a point of
whether the life/death of an older person was worth more or less
than life/death of a younger person. Though placing differential
values upon people, young or old, was not my argument it surely
must occur yet not a topic particularly tasteful to explore. We are
comparing games and not people. For "Justin" it seemed that a
wider context offered more persuasion than a narrowed context;
if so, then the wider context would be that of youthful experience.
Owing to a sense of balance, whether Chess or Go, the problem of
shoring up vulnerability produces attentiveness to weaker/missing
aspects, i.e. an effective offense constructed upon sound defense.
Data from winners of some tournament present only the half-picture.
Moreover, people are not to be measured by (external) economic
value if man is to be the measure of all things. Older people offer
experiences and younger people may offer fresh insights, though
these categories are not comparable. The game of Chess appears
to rely upon fresh insights while the game of Go is from experience.
That more people have experienced Chess instead of Go may occur
from the correlation because more people have experienced youth,
so Chess obtains its "superiority" by an apparent accessibility for all,
as well as amenability by cheap electronic device solution systems.
Of course with the Hikaru No Go generation are notable exceptions,
including the 2006 U.S. National Championship and U.S. Ing Winner,
plus some new youthful Go Title Holders on the Asian Continent.
These youthful prodigies are playing by keen perception rather than
by experience but, unlike youthful Chess players, they are not yet
illustrating quality of fresh insight. Disregarding anomalous outliers,
considering statistical distributions, the average age of powerhouse
Go Players continues to be older than average age of powerhouse
Chess Players, overall. Thereby Go obtains a society of discipleship
where the role of Teacher is crucial. If you prefer the hierarchical
model of human relationship you can argue "superiority" that way.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sgilibrary.org/writings.php
On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime
http://www.sgilibrary.org/view.php?page=3
------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 09:46:01
From: Mef
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 12, 9:42 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Also the strong player can think during the weak players thinking
> > time. Unless, of course, some form of temporary amnesia can be
> > induced while waiting for the weaker player's moves.
>
> Indeed he can. But, at that point, he does not know what move the
> weaker player will make.
Admittedly I have much more experience with go than with chess,
but I
find when playing a significantly underhandicapped go game I am much
more
likely to be surprised by a move that is weaker than expected than
stronger.
If the opponent plays the move I expect then I waste very little time
in
making my own. If they play an unexpected one, generally it is to my
favor.
The stronger player will also have the advantage in that up until the
novel
move is played, the vast majority of the thinking during the game will
have
occurred on his or her opponent's time. This means that depending on
how much
of a time handicap is initially granted, it's possible to have almost
completely
overcome it by halfway through the game. If the weaker player tries
to counter
this by matching his opponent's pace, then he will be essentially
throwing away
the handicap by not using it.
Cheers,
Mef
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 16:39:14
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 11, 2:24 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Chess is superior to Go. You just have to trust me on this.
>
> Well, superior at /what/ than Go?
>
> Can it be that one's enjoyment of a game over another game renders it
> superior, for those subjective reasons of enjoyment? If there are objective
> reasons, what is the rubric against which we compare one to another?
>
> I think it is usually risible when these superiority issues arise, even
> within chess. You see people declaring the game dead, and so on, who happen
> to exhuast their knowledge of openings at move 5, and are the result of
> cramming, so that their rating is 1400 as adults. Something for sure is dead
> about that, but I don't think it is the game.
Very Zen like answer. I have no issues with your answer, but I do
believe you can quantitatively ask the question of superiority as
follows: which game excites (fires) more neurons in the grey matter
we call the brain? Which 'excites' the passions (the intellectual
passions) more? Which energizes the left side of the brain concerned
with logic?
If you do a brain scan using PET, MRI and the like, you'll find (I
posit) that chess is "superior" to getting the blood flowing to your
brain. Because it's more tactical. Go is like memorizing a phone
book: a dull and thankless task, akin to watching those little metal
balls fall in a pachinko parlour.
Case closed, like my mind,
RL
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 06:33:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
"raylopez99" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 11, 2:24 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Chess is superior to Go. You just have to trust me on this.
>>
>> Well, superior at /what/ than Go?
>>
>> Can it be that one's enjoyment of a game over another game renders it
>> superior, for those subjective reasons of enjoyment? If there are
>> objective
>> reasons, what is the rubric against which we compare one to another?
>>
>> I think it is usually risible when these superiority issues arise, even
>> within chess. You see people declaring the game dead, and so on, who
>> happen
>> to exhuast their knowledge of openings at move 5, and are the result of
>> cramming, so that their rating is 1400 as adults. Something for sure is
>> dead
>> about that, but I don't think it is the game.
>
> Very Zen like answer. I have no issues with your answer, but I do
> believe you can quantitatively ask the question of superiority as
> follows: which game excites (fires) more neurons in the grey matter
> we call the brain? Which 'excites' the passions (the intellectual
> passions) more? Which energizes the left side of the brain concerned
> with logic?
Well, sure.
> If you do a brain scan using PET, MRI and the like, you'll find (I
> posit) that chess is "superior" to getting the blood flowing to your
> brain. Because it's more tactical. Go is like memorizing a phone
> book: a dull and thankless task, akin to watching those little metal
> balls fall in a pachinko parlour.
But brain have two halves, what is happening on right-side, with pattern
recognition?
> Case closed, like my mind,
Are all neurons equal? What if right-brain neurons are like pawns on the 7th
rank?
I also tried to learn Go as if it were a memory exercise - and it didn't
help any more than doing the same thing with chess openings. In fact this
struck me as being a patzer approach, and doomed to very limited results and
appreciation of the game. I also got as much enjoyment from learning this
way as reading an actual phone-book ;)
Go can have some similar qualities, it seems, and also other qualities which
are not in chess. There is no superiority to various qualities, otherwise we
argue that red is 'better' than green.
Cordially, Phil
>
> RL
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 14:04:04
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 11, 1:55 pm, "Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This context is not mentioned in the thread. The thread begins with a
> vague statement about flame bait and then jumps around until z1 mentions
> Asian and Western mindsets. Somewhere in there raylopez99 mentioned
> superiority but with little evidence and that evidence was pulled out of
> his ass.
>
> Then you jumped in and mentioned your list. There was no discussion
> of '"instructional games" for a school curriculum' in your first post and
> in fact it's never been mentioned until just now.
>
> Make sure that next time you try to have an argument you set the stage
> right beforehand so won't need to scramble like you have.
>
> Justin
Look, this is Usenet, not a peer reviewed journal. Another thing:
speculation (a hypothesis) is the lifeblood of science. By the time
it becomes canonical wisdom it's already old. I posted stuff that's
on the cutting edge of genetics and biology (the Neanderthal Man being
a redhead was in the last issue of Science, which BTW you cannot get
online until it's a year old--they do that to keep their expensive
print sales up).
You want PROOF? You can't HANDLE the proof!
Chess is superior to Go. You just have to trust me on this. It
stimulates the mind more. It's better. Go is good, and cannot (yet)
be played well by a computer, but that's also true of bridge or
poker. Not being beat by a computer is not superior (except with
respect to the computer). You wanna prevent Alzheimer's disease?
Exercise your mind? Have a instant and strong partner online or
electronically at any time of the day or night? Play chess then. Not
Go, but chess.
Case closed.
RL
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 17:24:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
"raylopez99" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0da50aaa-65ef-4b97-8696-eb2276eae26c@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 1:55 pm, "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This context is not mentioned in the thread. The thread begins with a
>> vague statement about flame bait and then jumps around until z1 mentions
>> Asian and Western mindsets. Somewhere in there raylopez99 mentioned
>> superiority but with little evidence and that evidence was pulled out of
>> his ass.
>>
>> Then you jumped in and mentioned your list. There was no discussion
>> of '"instructional games" for a school curriculum' in your first post and
>> in fact it's never been mentioned until just now.
>>
>> Make sure that next time you try to have an argument you set the stage
>> right beforehand so won't need to scramble like you have.
>>
>> Justin
>
> Look, this is Usenet, not a peer reviewed journal. Another thing:
> speculation (a hypothesis) is the lifeblood of science. By the time
> it becomes canonical wisdom it's already old. I posted stuff that's
> on the cutting edge of genetics and biology (the Neanderthal Man being
> a redhead was in the last issue of Science, which BTW you cannot get
> online until it's a year old--they do that to keep their expensive
> print sales up).
>
> You want PROOF? You can't HANDLE the proof!
>
> Chess is superior to Go. You just have to trust me on this.
Well, superior at /what/ than Go?
Can it be that one's enjoyment of a game over another game renders it
superior, for those subjective reasons of enjoyment? If there are objective
reasons, what is the rubric against which we compare one to another?
I think it is usually risible when these superiority issues arise, even
within chess. You see people declaring the game dead, and so on, who happen
to exhuast their knowledge of openings at move 5, and are the result of
cramming, so that their rating is 1400 as adults. Something for sure is dead
about that, but I don't think it is the game. It is not quite as if people
write here from the apex of knowing their own game, so that they could then
say what quintessential feature of themselves which is deeply engaged in
that mastery. Neither is it true that anyone who could do this, from
experience of Chess and Go, has contrasted what each game evokes in them.
Should these things not be the same, then, wherefore any talk of
superiority? That is patzer claim for either game.
Go is a mysterious game to me, I am no good at it, and grok not its
fullness. Its hard enough to maintain some pretence in chess :))
But at least I enjoy the chess struggle, win and lose, and sometimes am in
the mood to learn from both. I hope it is the same with Go players, and then
we may be able to say, Chess and Go are both superior in challenging us to
something we can name, to much else we experiened which does the same, or
which fails to do so.
Zen-Master, Phil-Sama.
> It
> stimulates the mind more. It's better. Go is good, and cannot (yet)
> be played well by a computer, but that's also true of bridge or
> poker. Not being beat by a computer is not superior (except with
> respect to the computer). You wanna prevent Alzheimer's disease?
> Exercise your mind? Have a instant and strong partner online or
> electronically at any time of the day or night? Play chess then. Not
> Go, but chess.
>
> Case closed.
>
> RL
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 13:09:42
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 11, 10:04 am, Michael Alford <[email protected] > wrote:
> Your incredible ignorance is appalling. I don't understand how a troll
> such as you has the chutzpah to keep posting when he's exposed over and
> over again as a fool. I suspect your need for attention is pathological.
And yours is?
RL
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 09:59:47
From: Sanny
Subject: Play Chess at GetClub
|
On Dec 11, 10:32 pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> After carefully considering this thread impartially, I deem that jb
> has won the thread and Justin has lost it.
>
> Conclusion: chess is indeed superior to Go as defined herein. Not to
> say that you cannot get enjoyment playing Go; actually you can
> probably get a lot of enjoyment playing Tic-Tac-Toe, depending on who
> your opponent is.
>
> RL
Chess is easy to learn & play than Go. Chess can be memorized and
learnt. Go has nothing to memorize.
If you want to play Chess. Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
and you can enjoy playing it online with computer as well as human
opponents.
I do not know GO well. But One of my friend told me it needs lots of
intelligence to win a Go Game and is equally challenging as Chess.
Igive 50 Points to Chess and 50 Points to Go Game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 02:59:52
From:
Subject: Re: Play Chess at GetClub
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:59:47 -0800 (PST), Sanny
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Chess is easy to learn & play than Go. Chess can be memorized and
>learnt. Go has nothing to memorize.
>
>I do not know GO well.
No shit?
-- Roy L
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 09:32:38
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
After carefully considering this thread impartially, I deem that jb
has won the thread and Justin has lost it.
Conclusion: chess is indeed superior to Go as defined herein. Not to
say that you cannot get enjoyment playing Go; actually you can
probably get a lot of enjoyment playing Tic-Tac-Toe, depending on who
your opponent is.
RL
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 10:04:08
From: Michael Alford
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
raylopez99 wrote:
> After carefully considering this thread impartially, I deem that jb
> has won the thread and Justin has lost it.
>
> Conclusion: chess is indeed superior to Go as defined herein. Not to
> say that you cannot get enjoyment playing Go; actually you can
> probably get a lot of enjoyment playing Tic-Tac-Toe, depending on who
> your opponent is.
>
> RL
Your incredible ignorance is appalling. I don't understand how a troll
such as you has the chutzpah to keep posting when he's exposed over and
over again as a fool. I suspect your need for attention is pathological.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 13:22:21
From: Orne Batmagoo
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 10, 3:13 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 08 Dec 2007 23:27:56 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> >The only sensible handicap scheme for chess is to give the stronger
> >player less time.
>
> Actually, that's a fairly absurd and useless handicap scheme, as the
> quality of the weaker player's moves will top out after a brief time,
> and if the difference in skill is at all considerable, the handicap
> will depend more and more on the stronger player's physical skill of
> moving pieces and stopping the clock as quickly as possible. Habitual
> blitz players would of course have an enormous advantage.
I don't like playing blintz.
The strawberries are sticky, and the powdered sugar gets all over the
board and pieces.
--
Orne Batmagoo
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 11:26:38
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 10, 3:13 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
> > Then impress us with your math skills you dumb Pole.
>
> > RL
>
> When I say something, I know what I am saying.
> When you say something, it is empty posturing,
> with no substance.
>
> That tells us who is dumb.
>
> 'nough said,
>
> Wlod
Sorry, I meant to say "stupid Pole"--consistent with the stupid theme
in this thread--my mistake.
RL
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 11:24:19
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 9, 11:25 am, T k Hall <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I lived in Japan for three years and I have played Go for 40 years. I
> probably own more Go books in Japanese, Korean and Chinese than you have
> remaining brain cells. The fact that these books don't appear in an
> English language search engine, while Chess books do, is a simple
> demonstration of your incompetence.
> --
> T k Hall
> Honorary Vice-president, British Go Associationhttp://www.gogod.co.uk/index.htmhttp://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/NewInGo.htm
B.S. On internet you can pretend to be anybody.
DId you know the promising young German Go player killed in a robbery
in Guatamala? I perchance saw his obit from a few years ago online.
RL
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 03:13:49
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 9, 7:46 am, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2:02 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yes, a math term about which you have no clue,
> > as illustrated drastically by your statement.
>
> Then impress us with your math skills you dumb Pole.
>
> RL
When I say something, I know what I am saying.
When you say something, it is empty posturing,
with no substance.
That tells us who is dumb.
'nough said,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 09:59:09
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
T k Hall wrote:
>I lived in Japan for three years and I have played Go for 40 years.
>I probably own more Go books in Japanese, Korean and Chinese than
>you [raylopez99] have remaining brain cells.
So you have three books on Go. Big deal. :)
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 09:55:45
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
raylopez99 wrote:
>Baloney. Metaphysics--if nobody can measure it, it doesn't exist.
>WHat is your authority for such a statement? The Go Society of Japan?
So love doesn't exist?
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 01:53:07
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 9, 12:24 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> >Feel free to do whatever you please.
> >I don't need your stupid suggestions.
>
> >(Here, I used successfully your favorite
> >word stupid :-).
>
> > Wlod
>
> See what happens when we respond to these kinds of threads?
>
> It is stupid.
>
> EZoto
:-)
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 19:25:14
From: T Mark Hall
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In message
<6979eacc-5f99-44b7-8fe0-2c3fe206ee9e@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com >,
raylopez99 <[email protected] > writes
>On Dec 9, 10:41 am, T k Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> There have been more books published on Go in Japan than on Chess in all
>> other languages. It is just that you can't see them, so you make stupid,
>> trolling, statements like that.
>> --
>
>Baloney. Metaphysics--if nobody can measure it, it doesn't exist.
>WHat is your authority for such a statement? The Go Society of Japan?
>
>RL
I lived in Japan for three years and I have played Go for 40 years. I
probably own more Go books in Japanese, Korean and Chinese than you have
remaining brain cells. The fact that these books don't appear in an
English language search engine, while Chess books do, is a simple
demonstration of your incompetence.
--
T k Hall
Honorary Vice-president, British Go Association
http://www.gogod.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/NewInGo.htm
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 10:55:05
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 9, 10:41 am, T k Hall <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> There have been more books published on Go in Japan than on Chess in all
> other languages. It is just that you can't see them, so you make stupid,
> trolling, statements like that.
> --
Baloney. Metaphysics--if nobody can measure it, it doesn't exist.
WHat is your authority for such a statement? The Go Society of Japan?
RL
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 18:41:29
From: T Mark Hall
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In message
<ce4e82d6-624f-4c9b-a57d-08e9efd5fdc4@l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
raylopez99 <[email protected] > writes
>> > But chess has more pedigre, a bigger library, and more
>> > action per move, as I've stated before.
>>
>> Well, no. Chess does not have "a bigger library."
>>
>
>No, false. Chess clearly has a bigger library, just go to Amazon.
>Unless you are counting some obscure photocopied pamphlets in Asia
>distributed amongst millions of people.
>
>RL
There have been more books published on Go in Japan than on Chess in all
other languages. It is just that you can't see them, so you make stupid,
trolling, statements like that.
--
T k Hall
Honorary Vice-president, British Go Association
http://www.gogod.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/NewInGo.htm
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 17:19:06
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
raylopez99 sez:
>> (c) Unless it's blitz chess, the King may not be captured:
>> only mating is required.
>
>I didn't know you could capture the king in blitz.
You lose if you make an illegal move. Caturing the king is just
a convenient way of demonstrating that you made one of the most
common illegal moves.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 07:58:42
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 7, 10:40 am, [email protected] (-) wrote:
> "raylopez99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > ... Both games can be solved by a computer, even though
> > they are arguably NP-complete (math term).
>
> Neither game has been "solved by a computer." There
> are merely programs which can -indicate- "solvability."
> "NP-completeness" isn't much to crow about, after all...
Makes for an interesting game, NP-completeness and PSPACE
completeness, see: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/cgt/hard.html
>
> Yet, let's explore a bit further why Chess is "superior."
>
> (a) Chess computers can provide expert instruction
> even in absense or unavailability of a teacher.
Yes
> (b) Chess rules can declare a draw, whenever there
> is insufficient mating material, even with insufficient
> time on the clock to establish that fact.
Yes, good one.
> (c) Unless it's blitz chess, the King may not be captured:
> only mating is required.
I didn't know you could capture the king in blitz.
> (d) In general, handicaps are not supplied for Chess.
No, time handicaps and pawn odds.
> (e) Pawns may promote so there's hope even for the
> lowliest-valued pieces in this game.
> (f) Chess Players are highly respected in the West,
> where it really counts, whereas Go Players are
> relegated to obscure and remote Asian corners.
Yes, true, less money in Asia.
> (g) Chess has crucial variants -- such as Siamese Chess --
> so pieces may be dropped while enhancing team play.
Siamese chess? Lemme Google it...ahh, Bughouse chess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess
> (h) Typically the Chess Players will "fight on", even from
> hopeless positions, because game sharpness allows
> for serious blunders even in the endgame.
Yes
> (i) Chess -endgames- are also more "active" because
> there are fewer pieces on the board.
Yes
> (j) Chess allows for a few position repititions without
> forcing immediate draw or loss by superko rule.
Yes
>
> All in all, at least 10 reasons prove that Chess is "superior."
> What remains is to explain why everybody doesn't play Chess.
>
> > But chess has more pedigre, a bigger library, and more
> > action per move, as I've stated before.
>
> Well, no. Chess does not have "a bigger library."
>
No, false. Chess clearly has a bigger library, just go to Amazon.
Unless you are counting some obscure photocopied pamphlets in Asia
distributed amongst millions of people.
RL
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 17:42:17
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> (-) wrote:
>> (b) Chess rules can declare a draw, whenever there
>> is insufficient mating material, even with insufficient
>> time on the clock to establish that fact.
raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> Yes, good one.
Another good one: if a checkmate is on the board, then
it does not matter whether one player is found to be out of time
because Chess is "superior" to the clock.
>> (c) Unless it's blitz chess, the King may not be captured:
>> only mating is required.
> I didn't know you could capture the king in blitz.
Tends to discredit your participation in this discourse, eh ?
Under scholastic rules King attacks -must- be dealt with or else.
>> (d) In general, handicaps are not supplied for Chess.
> No, time handicaps and pawn odds.
Let's clarify what I mean by "In general..." If you tally the
games being played a much higher proportion of them in Go
are handicapped than in Chess. At a typical Chess Club or on
the Internet you will not find handicapping play, because Chess
is "superior" which means Chess players are superior, of course.
>> (f) Chess Players are highly respected in the West,
>> where it really counts, whereas Go Players are
>> relegated to obscure and remote Asian corners.
> Yes, true, less money in Asia.
Though there is more money for the top tournament winners in
Go than for Chess, worldwide. Yet Chess is "superior" of course.
>>> But chess has more pedigre, a bigger library, and more
>>> action per move, as I've stated before.
>> Well, no. Chess does not have "a bigger library."
> No, false. Chess clearly has a bigger library, just go to Amazon.
> Unless you are counting some obscure photocopied pamphlets
> in Asia distributed amongst millions of people.
Even without photocopiers, the literature for Go is larger.
Not all books (pamphlets) are distributed via Amazon, of course.
Indeed, the Amazon is disappearing every day.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
More than half of Amazon will be lost by 2030, report warns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/06/conservation.endangeredhabitats
>>> Bummer. It's a great place to get a deal on books.
> "John P." <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, when half of it is lost, will it just become www.amaz.com?
"Schrodingers Hat" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thats only a third gone, so all is not lost
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 12:12:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
- <[email protected] > wrote:
>> (-) wrote:
>>> (c) Unless it's blitz chess, the King may not be captured:
>>> only mating is required.
>>
>> I didn't know you could capture the king in blitz.
>
> Tends to discredit your participation in this discourse, eh ?
Not really. Under FIDE (i.e., international) rules, capturing the
king is absolutely forbidden. If a player fails to move out of check,
they have made an illegal move. The board is reset to the position
before the illegal move was made, the opponent is given two minutes
extra on his clock to compensate for the confusion and the player must
make a legal move. Attempting three illegal moves in the same game
forfeits that game.
That the US Chess Federation uses a set of rules that allow capturing
of the king (contravening the FIDE regulation that national feder-
ations may not use rules that contradict the international rules) is
an interesting piece of trivia but hardly fundamental chess knowledge.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Simple Accelerated Umbrella (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an umbrella but it's twice
as fast and it has no moving parts!
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 13:43:37
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
>>> (-) wrote:
>>>> (c) Unless it's blitz chess, the King may not be captured:
>>>> only mating is required.
>>> I didn't know you could capture the king in blitz.
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tends to discredit your participation in this discourse, eh ?
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Not really. Under FIDE (i.e., international) rules, capturing the
> king is absolutely forbidden. If a player fails to move out of check,
> they have made an illegal move. The board is reset to the position
> before the illegal move was made, the opponent is given two minutes
> extra on his clock to compensate for the confusion and the player must
> make a legal move. Attempting three illegal moves in the same game
> forfeits that game.
Search on the technical term "blitz" and you will find Rules C1, C2, C3.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:MAoUQ3B4Ct4J:www.fide.com/official/handbook/E_I_01a.pdf+blitz+site:http://www.fide.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=42&gl=us
For FIDE "blitz" chess the opponent may claim a win in the event
of an illegal move (such as a King left under check).
Also at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_chess
> That the US Chess Federation uses a set of rules that allow capturing
> of the king (contravening the FIDE regulation that national
> federations may not use rules that contradict the international rules) is
> an interesting piece of trivia but hardly fundamental chess knowledge.
No contravening has occured. You are sadly mistaken (& British).
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm a relatively weak player but I play *much* better chess
> given an hour and a half for forty moves (a fairly common tournament
> time control) than I do given half an hour or fifteen minutes.
Tends to discredit everything you wish to say about "blitz", eh?
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> (a) Chess computers can provide expert instruction
>> even in absense or unavailability of a teacher.
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Not true. Computers can't tell you anything more than `If you'd made
> this move, you'd have won material.' In cases where the computer's
> suggested improvement doesn't win material, the only advice it gives
> is `If you'd made this move, my evaluation function would give you a
> higher score.' The computer can't tell you *why* it thinks the
> position is better, just *that* it thinks it's better. This has very
> low didactic value.
Computers can explain "why" by disclosing their evaluation
function in simple terms easily described to the novice player.
Your A.I. experience is woefully abysmal, with low didactic value.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------
The Little-Known Negro Space Program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxNAPqGDwCo&eurl=http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=63008
--------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 14:55:11
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
- <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not really. Under FIDE (i.e., international) rules, capturing the
>> king is absolutely forbidden. If a player fails to move out of
>> check, they have made an illegal move. The board is reset to the
>> position before the illegal move was made, the opponent is given
>> two minutes extra on his clock to compensate for the confusion and
>> the player must make a legal move. Attempting three illegal moves
>> in the same game forfeits that game.
>
> For FIDE "blitz" chess the opponent may claim a win in the event
> of an illegal move (such as a King left under check).
You're quite correct that, in blitz, a single illegal move by the
opponent is sufficient to claim the win. However, that win must be
claimed *before* making one's own move (Article C3). In particular,
if I leave my king in check (an illegal move) and you capture it, you
have forfeited the right to claim the win by making your move.
Further, since *your* move, capturing my king, was illegal *I* am now
entitled to claim the win!
So, as I stated, under the FIDE laws of chess, capturing the king is
absolutely forbidden. (Article 1.2: ``... `capturing' the opponent's
king [is] not allowed.'') Even in blitz.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Metal Gnome (TM): it's like a smiling
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ garden ornament that's made of steel!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 18:18:38
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Not really. Under FIDE (i.e., international) rules, capturing the
>>> king is absolutely forbidden. If a player fails to move out of
>>> check, they have made an illegal move. The board is reset to the
>>> position before the illegal move was made, the opponent is given
>>> two minutes extra on his clock to compensate for the confusion and
>>> the player must make a legal move. Attempting three illegal moves
>>> in the same game forfeits that game.
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> For FIDE "blitz" chess the opponent may claim a win in the event
>> of an illegal move (such as a King left under check).
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> You're quite correct that, in blitz, a single illegal move by the
> opponent is sufficient to claim the win. However, that win must be
> claimed *before* making one's own move (Article C3). In particular,
> if I leave my king in check (an illegal move) and you capture it, you
> have forfeited the right to claim the win by making your move.
> Further, since *your* move, capturing my king, was illegal *I* am now
> entitled to claim the win!
>
> So, as I stated, under the FIDE laws of chess, capturing the king is
> absolutely forbidden. (Article 1.2: ``... `capturing' the opponent's
> king [is] not allowed.'') Even in blitz.
Article 1.2 defines checkmate as a condition where the opponent's
King is under attack so that the opponent has no legal move. So the
condition of checkmate already exists in "blitz" when a player has
moved while allowing the King to remain exposed to capture, i.e.
having moved already there is no (second) legal move to play, a
condition allowed for "blitz" owing to special exception clauses.
Once there is the condition of checkmate all other conditions are
rendered null, moot, void, irrelevant, specious, and annihilated.
Removing the opponent's King merely signifies declaration of that
checkmate condition for setting up pieces again, or putting away.
Of course it is legal to pick up either King once the game is over,
and the game is already over whenever displaying a checkmate.
I think your concern addresses whether "something x King" is
annotated on the scoresheet, not regarding a behavior pattern.
But they are not keeping scoresheets at all in "blitz" Chess.
Refer also to the phrase which invokes "the most unskilled
counterplay" in C3 of the "blitz" rules. Here "the most unskilled
counterplay" includes failure to register a counterclaim against
the observation that there is/was a checkmate (otherwise there
would be a demonstration of some "skill" with the Chess rules).
A game arbiter simply reworks the game process until condition
of checkmate exists and is identified. Then it's all over for claims.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gun-launched by Richard K Graf
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/gunnched.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 12:00:13
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
- <[email protected] > wrote:
>David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You're quite correct that, in blitz, a single illegal move by the
>> opponent is sufficient to claim the win. However, that win must be
>> claimed *before* making one's own move (Article C3). In particular,
>> if I leave my king in check (an illegal move) and you capture it, you
>> have forfeited the right to claim the win by making your move.
>> Further, since *your* move, capturing my king, was illegal *I* am now
>> entitled to claim the win!
>>
>> So, as I stated, under the FIDE laws of chess, capturing the king is
>> absolutely forbidden. (Article 1.2: ``... `capturing' the opponent's
>> king [is] not allowed.'') Even in blitz.
>
> Article 1.2 defines checkmate as a condition where the opponent's
> King is under attack so that the opponent has no legal move. So the
> condition of checkmate already exists in "blitz" when a player has
> moved while allowing the King to remain exposed to capture, i.e.
> having moved already there is no (second) legal move to play, a
> condition allowed for "blitz" owing to special exception clauses.
Well, hang on a minute. There are two cases. If you checkmate me,
the game is already over so, as you say, anything we do with the
pieces from that point is not part of a game of chess so is not
governed by the rules of chess. At least, until we start the next
game.
However, if your check is not checkmate, we are still playing chess.
If I make an illegal move (failing to escape from check) and you
respond by capturing my king, I am entitled to claim the win on the
basis of your illegal move.
Capturing the king really is forbidden in a game of chess under the
FIDE laws. It is never a legal move of any game.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Cheese Gnome (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a smiling garden ornament that's
made of cheese but it's perfect for
your grandparents!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 13:09:53
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You're quite correct that, in blitz, a single illegal move by the
>>> opponent is sufficient to claim the win. However, that win must be
>>> claimed *before* making one's own move (Article C3). In particular,
>>> if I leave my king in check (an illegal move) and you capture it, you
>>> have forfeited the right to claim the win by making your move.
>>> Further, since *your* move, capturing my king, was illegal *I* am now
>>> entitled to claim the win!
>>>
>>> So, as I stated, under the FIDE laws of chess, capturing the king is
>>> absolutely forbidden. (Article 1.2: ``... `capturing' the opponent's
>>> king [is] not allowed.'') Even in blitz.
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Article 1.2 defines checkmate as a condition where the opponent's
>> King is under attack so that the opponent has no legal move. So the
>> condition of checkmate already exists in "blitz" when a player has
>> moved while allowing the King to remain exposed to capture, i.e.
>> having moved already there is no (second) legal move to play, a
>> condition allowed for "blitz" owing to special exception clauses.
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Well, hang on a minute. There are two cases. If you checkmate me,
> the game is already over so, as you say, anything we do with the
> pieces from that point is not part of a game of chess so is not
> governed by the rules of chess. At least, until we start the next
> game.
>
> However, if your check is not checkmate, we are still playing chess.
> If I make an illegal move (failing to escape from check) and you
> respond by capturing my king, I am entitled to claim the win on the
> basis of your illegal move.
If the check does not become checkmate then the King got
protected. We are focused on the situation in "blitz" where the King
remained in check after making a move and the clock was punched.
There would be an "illegal position" on the board under the normal
rules but under "blitz" chess the next player to move may claim a win.
Moreover, whenever there is a pathway to checkmate (and there is)
a checkmated player must apply only the "most unskilled counterplay."
Your arguments here are not applying the "most unskilled counterplay"
(revealing a possible source of your difficulty with the "blitz" genre).
The demonstration of checkmate may involve moving the capturing
piece, even tapping the checkmated King, while the checkmated
player cannot register any objections, otherwise "skill" was applied.
After tapping the checkmated King the checkmated King may be
touched by the winning player's hand, even fondled, lifted from
the board and replaced on the square. The checkmated player
cannot object because the checkmated player must operate only
by the "most unskilled counterplay." After lifting from the board
the checkmated King can also be moved out of the way for the
proper demonstration of checkmate so that the viewing of this
checkmated position is made perfectly clear, while a checkmated
player can used only the "most unskilled counterplay." The
checkmated King may also be set to the side of the board for
temporary purposes in order to completely and thoroughly
demonstrate that checkmated position to the defeated player
who is allowed to show only the "most unskilled counterplay."
After the checkmated King is set to the side of the board for
temporary purposes in order to completely and thoroughly
demonstrate that checkmated position, the checkmated King
may rest for awhile longer on the side of the board so that the
significance of that checkmated position is made much more
transparent to the losing player who was defeated by the rule
which demands of that losing player only the "most unskilled
counterplay." After the checkmated King has rested for awhile
longer on the side of the board while the checkmate is made
perfectly clear, the King can be moved along the side of the
board in either direction, surrendered or sequestered as the
case may be while the losing player shows only the "most
unskilled counterplay." Game is still in progress as long as the
losing player must show only the "most unskilled counterplay."
In this case the "most unskilled counterplay" would mean the
behavior which does not launch any counterclaims, incapable
of producing any arguments whatsoever, and just rolls over
to play dead.
No contravening of FIDE rules when in "blitz" chess the
mated King is being held up for inspection, slid along the side
of the board in either direction, and when the "most unskilled
counterplay" cannot invoke any further whining or complaining.
> Capturing the king really is forbidden in a game of chess under
> the FIDE laws. It is never a legal move of any game.
It could be an illegal move but there is no means in "blitz" by
which any prosecution for that illegal move may occur under the
FIDE phrase construction which demands of a defeated player
only the "most unskilled counterplay." This "illegal move" stands.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [zapatista email group] Russian Warships To Dock In Syria
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-15118-israelnews-russian-warships-dock-syria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 15:13:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
[ -- > rec.games.chess.misc, since this has had nothing to do with Go ]
[ for quite some time. Apologies for not setting followups earlier. ]
In article <[email protected] >,
- <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well, hang on a minute. There are two cases. If you checkmate me,
>> the game is already over so, as you say, anything we do with the
>> pieces from that point is not part of a game of chess so is not
>> governed by the rules of chess. At least, until we start the next
>> game.
>>
>> However, if your check is not checkmate, we are still playing chess.
>> If I make an illegal move (failing to escape from check) and you
>> respond by capturing my king, I am entitled to claim the win on the
>> basis of your illegal move.
>
> If the check does not become checkmate then the King got protected.
You misunderstand. `Check' means that, in the current position, the
king is attacked by an enemy piece (Article 3.9). `Checkmate' means
that the king is in check and there is no legal move that removes the
check (Article 1.2). A check cannot `become' a checkmate -- it either
is a checkmate or it is not.
> We are focused on the situation in "blitz" where the King
> remained in check after making a move and the clock was punched.
Correct.
> There would be an "illegal position" on the board under the normal
> rules but under "blitz" chess the next player to move may claim a
> win.
Correct in both cases. It is still an illegal position in blitz.
> Moreover, whenever there is a pathway to checkmate (and there is) a
> checkmated player must apply only the "most unskilled counterplay."
> Your arguments here are not applying the "most unskilled
> counterplay" (revealing a possible source of your difficulty with
> the "blitz" genre).
No. You misunderstand the `most unskilled counterplay' requirement.
Article C3 says that if I make an illegal move, you can claim the win
unless you have so little material left that you cannot deliver
checkmate through any legal sequence of moves, even if I play like a
total donkey. For example, suppose you have a king and a bishop and I
have just my king. There is no sequence of legal moves that can ever
lead to you checkmating me. Now, further, suppose that I move into
check (or make any other illegal move, such as moving my king like a
knight). You can end the game by pointing out the illegal move but
you cannot claim a win; only a draw.
In contrast, suppose that you have two knights and your king, against
my lone king. Here, you cannot *force* checkmate unless you have a
mate in one: by using my skill, I can save myself from any threat you
could make. On the other hand, by playing like a total donkey, I
could walk my king into the corner and get checkmated. Therefore, if
I move into check, you can claim the win.
In the first case, you cannot win, even against the most unskilled
counterplay from me. Therefore, the game is drawn if I make an
illegal move. In the second case, you can win against particularly
unskilled counterplay, so you can claim a win if I make an illegal
move. (On the other hand, if you make an illegal move in that case, I
can't checkmate you with just my king so I could only claim a draw.)
> The demonstration of checkmate
Checkmate does not have to be demonstrated. The game is over as soon
as checkmate occurs. In the same way, if you shoot somebody in the
head, that person is dead and you don't need to demonstrate to them
that their brains are no longer inside their skull.
>> Capturing the king really is forbidden in a game of chess under
>> the FIDE laws. It is never a legal move of any game.
>
> It could be an illegal move
It is *always* an illegal move. Which is to say, it is forbidden by
the laws of the game.
> but there is no means in "blitz" by which any prosecution for that
> illegal move may occur under the FIDE phrase construction which
> demands of a defeated player only the "most unskilled counterplay."
Article C3 does not demand that the defeated player use the most
unskilled counterplay. It demands that, in order to claim a win in a
position, it must be possible to win in that position if the opponent
plays with no skill. In other words, there must be a sequence of
legal moves that leads to checkmate. If there is no such sequence of
legal moves (i.e., it is not possible to win, even against the most
unskilled counterplay) then a win cannot be claimed.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Natural Hilarious Hat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a hat but it's a bundle of laughs and
completely natural!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 19:11:22
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> [ --> rec.games.chess.misc, since this has had nothing to do with Go ]
> [ for quite some time. Apologies for not setting followups earlier. ]
If FIDE rules are unworthy of clear and coherent understanding
then this discussion indeed does impinge upon the matter of which
game is "superior" to the other.
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If the check does not become checkmate then the King got protected.
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> You misunderstand. `Check' means that, in the current position, the
> king is attacked by an enemy piece (Article 3.9). `Checkmate' means
> that the king is in check and there is no legal move that removes the
> check (Article 1.2). A check cannot `become' a checkmate -- it either
> is a checkmate or it is not.
In "blitz" there is checkmate when a player neglects to protect
the King because, once having moved, there is no legal move to
remove the attacking check. Problem stems from a situation which
was declared as "not allowed" under Article 1.2 but under B2 of the
Rapidplay Rules, some FIDE rules of chess are overridden, and B6
of Rapidplay says that illegal moves -may- be completed. Then, for
"blitz", under C2 the B6 does not apply because C3 will replace B6.
However, under C2 a B2 still applies which suspends some normal
FIDE rules of chess. Neither Rapidplay nor "blitz" are province of
general FIDE rules pantheon, but were added on posthumorously.
We may conclude that Article 3.9 no longer applies because under
Rapidplay and "blitz" it is legal to make illegal moves. One question
remains that if one player has no King on the board whether those
positions continue to be illegal for further claims. Because "blitz"
has no arbiter, unlike Rapidplay, the player in a situation of having
to make the "most unskilled" moves has no recourse but to resign.
Otherwise there would be more skill than the "most unskilled" play.
>> There would be an "illegal position" on the board under the normal
>> rules but under "blitz" chess the next player to move may claim a
>> win.
> Correct in both cases. It is still an illegal position in blitz.
Illegal positions have not been defined for "blitz." There are
merely the "illegal moves" which are made legal by Rule C3.
>> Moreover, whenever there is a pathway to checkmate (and there is) a
>> checkmated player must apply only the "most unskilled counterplay."
>> Your arguments here are not applying the "most unskilled
>> counterplay" (revealing a possible source of your difficulty with
>> the "blitz" genre).
> No. You misunderstand the `most unskilled counterplay' requirement.
> Article C3 says that if I make an illegal move, you can claim the win
> unless you have so little material left that you cannot deliver
> checkmate through any legal sequence of moves, even if I play like a
> total donkey. For example, suppose you have a king and a bishop and I
> have just my king. There is no sequence of legal moves that can ever
> lead to you checkmating me. Now, further, suppose that I move into
> check (or make any other illegal move, such as moving my king like a
> knight). You can end the game by pointing out the illegal move but
> you cannot claim a win; only a draw.
"Most unskilled counterplay" must apply legal moves, however
under C3 it is legal to make an illegal move. So "most unskilled
counterplay" would need to leave the King in check, or move the
King into check, and abandon further hopes of winning or drawing.
Surely it takes more "skill" to obtain a draw than a loss? So the
defeated player cannot be allowed to play for draw instead of loss.
>> The demonstration of checkmate
> Checkmate does not have to be demonstrated. The game is over
> as soon as checkmate occurs. In the same way, if you shoot
> somebody in the head, that person is dead and you don't need to
> demonstrate to them that their brains are no longer inside their skull.
Apparently you have never worked with child education...
>>> Capturing the king really is forbidden in a game of chess under
>>> the FIDE laws. It is never a legal move of any game.
>> It could be an illegal move
> It is *always* an illegal move. Which is to say, it is forbidden by
> the laws of the game.
But what is forbidden under normal FIDE rules has been
suspended by the Rapidplay rules and rules for "blitz." Clearly
C3 allows for the possibility of illegal moves, and they ARE legal.
>> ... there is no means in "blitz" by which any prosecution for that
>> illegal move may occur under the FIDE phrase construction which
>> demands of a defeated player only the "most unskilled counterplay."
> Article C3 does not demand that the defeated player use the most
> unskilled counterplay. It demands that, in order to claim a win in a
> position, it must be possible to win in that position if the opponent
> plays with no skill. In other words, there must be a sequence of
> legal moves that leads to checkmate. If there is no such sequence
> of legal moves (i.e., it is not possible to win, even against the most
> unskilled counterplay) then a win cannot be claimed.
Surely there would be no skill if the defeated player continued
making more "illegal moves" under C3, leading to immediate loss.
Obviously you have not understood the meaning of that simple
phrase "the MOST unskilled counterplay" by ANY possible series
of LEGAL moves (enabling ALSO those moves made under C3).
B2 and C2 have -overridden- the normal laws of FIDE chess.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
'Harmless' Active Denial Weapons Facts...And Burns
http://www.rense.com/general79/harmless.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2007 12:10:26
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
- <[email protected] > wrote:
> [stuff]
Your understanding of the FIDE laws of chess is incorrect. I have
tried to explain this to you in as many ways as I know how but I have
neither the time nor the interest to continue.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poisonous Cat (TM): it's like a cuddly
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ pet but it'll kill you in seconds!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2007 17:10:54
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Your understanding of the FIDE laws of chess is incorrect.
> I have tried to explain this to you in as many ways as I know
> how but I have neither the time nor the interest to continue.
There is no arbiter in FIDE "blitz"chess. The rules are poorly
written and easily subject to misinterpretation by all sides. The
FIDE has been a sore point of criticism by many Chess players
worldwide, which renders Chess less "superior" than it could be.
Quite fortunately the FIDE has not laid a hand on Go Rules.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------
bush - war is over ( Merry Christmas )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2TDN16UtTk
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 07:46:15
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 8, 2:02 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Yes, a math term about which you have no clue,
> as illustrated drastically by your statement.
Then impress us with your math skills you dumb Pole.
RL
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 07:44:43
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 8, 3:59 pm, z1 <[email protected] > wrote:
> zdrakec wrote:
> Go requires a more spatial approach, whereas chess is more lineally driven.
>
It's been said that Asians use the spatial part of their brain more
(perhaps because they are derived from different hominids? Think
Peking Man vs. Neanthrathal Man, where the latest research shows the
latter was a redhead while the former looks very Asian too me). But,
if so, why are Asian women such bad automobile drivers? Isn't driving
spatial? LOL.
> It's probable that in Asia Go would have been the only game of it's type
> possible. On the other hand tho, there is also Shogi which is
> chess-related. So pardon me, we do have Go and 'chess' in Asia.
>
> Now if the West has it's 'shogi' in chess, then where is the West's 'Go'?
And yes, perhaps Chinese chess (xiangqi), which is more tactical than
western chess (I don't know about Shogi however) is superior by my
terms (more action per move) but I find xiangqi a bit *too* tactical
for my taste, though it is a good game.
RL
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 07:40:22
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 8, 3:29 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
Excellent link you provided, DR, at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/cgt/hard.html
I didn't actually think chess was NP-complete, since it has a finite
(albeit large) number of moves, but my intuition about the colloqual
use of the term was correct, I see from reading the above.
RL
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 05:35:01
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 8, 8:35 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:53:07 -0800 (PST), "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>
>
>
> (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 6:16 pm, EZoto <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:48:41 -0800 (PST), raylopez99
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Chess has nothing in common with go at all. Comparing 2 games with no
> >> similarities is pretty.................stupid.
>
> >> EZoto
>
> >C.H.O'D Alexander has compared chess and GO in
> >"A Book of Chess". In his opinion GO is superior to
> >chess. I agree with Alexander. And I have deep respect
> >for him. (He was anything but stupid).
>
> >Wlod
>
> If you want to make a real comparison how about Chinese chess to
> international chess ( our chess ). Chinese chess is probably more
> superior than chess and go if you want to go that route.
>
> EZoto
Feel free to do whatever you please.
I don't need your stupid suggestions.
(Here, I used successfully your favorite
word stupid :-).
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 20:24:05
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
>
>Feel free to do whatever you please.
>I don't need your stupid suggestions.
>
>(Here, I used successfully your favorite
>word stupid :-).
>
> Wlod
See what happens when we respond to these kinds of threads?
It is stupid.
EZoto
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 23:40:43
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski Wlod wrote:
>
>On Dec 7, 11:22 am, "Wozza Ports" <wozzap@gee_male.com> wrote:
>
>> (or has chess developed a handicap system since I last looked?)
>
>1. The stronger player gets less time than
>the weaker player on the clock.
>
>2.The strong player players several weaker
>players simultaneously.
In either case a really good player beats a patzer every time.
In Go such mismatched players have equal chances after the
handicap is applied.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 02:02:07
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 7, 9:14 am, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> Yes, they are. Both games can be solved by a computer,
> even though they are arguably NP-complete (math term).
Yes, a math term about which you have no clue,
as illustrated drastically by your statement.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 01:58:24
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 7, 11:22 am, "Wozza Ports" <wozzap@gee_male.com > wrote:
> (or has chess developed a handicap system since I last looked?)
1. The stronger player gets less time than
the weaker player on the clock.
2.The strong player players several weaker
players simultaneously.
But you are right, GO allows for these 1. 2.,
and on the top of it it GO has the k-stone
handicaps in the first place.
BTW, a GO game can be started from any position,
which means that there are a lot of different handicaps
in addition to the standard k-stone handicaps.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 01:53:07
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 7, 6:16 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:48:41 -0800 (PST), raylopez99
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chess has nothing in common with go at all. Comparing 2 games with no
> similarities is pretty.................stupid.
>
> EZoto
C.H.O'D Alexander has compared chess and GO in
"A Book of Chess". In his opinion GO is superior to
chess. I agree with Alexander. And I have deep respect
for him. (He was anything but stupid).
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 04:35:03
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:53:07 -0800 (PST), "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
(Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote:
>On Dec 7, 6:16 pm, EZoto <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:48:41 -0800 (PST), raylopez99
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Chess has nothing in common with go at all. Comparing 2 games with no
>> similarities is pretty.................stupid.
>>
>> EZoto
>
>C.H.O'D Alexander has compared chess and GO in
>"A Book of Chess". In his opinion GO is superior to
>chess. I agree with Alexander. And I have deep respect
>for him. (He was anything but stupid).
>
>Wlod
If you want to make a real comparison how about Chinese chess to
international chess ( our chess ). Chinese chess is probably more
superior than chess and go if you want to go that route.
EZoto
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 01:48:40
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 7, 9:14 am, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> Case closed.
Indeed, your brain is enclosed in a small case,
full of...
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 02:16:31
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:48:41 -0800 (PST), raylopez99
<[email protected] > wrote:
Chess has nothing in common with go at all. Comparing 2 games with no
similarities is pretty.................stupid.
EZoto
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2008 22:17:15
From: hans kloss
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
EZoto wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:48:41 -0800 (PST), raylopez99
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chess has nothing in common with go at all. Comparing 2 games with no
> similarities is pretty.................stupid.
>
> EZoto
>
1. assuming that any of the arguments here were serious one can also
state that the participants of this discussion do not compare anything -
as they want to establish superiority of one over another they use
prejudice and fallacy as foundations for the arguments or simply flaming.
2. almost any two given things in this world have something in common
with each other - you just need a certain distance and angle to see it.
Besides that I agre this discussion (if you can call it that) is rather
silly.
br
hans
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 05:22:35
From: Wozza Ports
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
"raylopez99" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:beed3ec6-6752-49e4-8751-89c08907a30b@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>.
what I like about go is that you can have handicaps so a weak player can
play a strong player on more or less equal terms, a bit like golf.
(or has chess developed a handicap system since I last looked?)
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 23:27:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
Wozza Ports <wozzap@gee_male.com > wrote:
> what I like about go is that you can have handicaps so a weak player
> can play a strong player on more or less equal terms, a bit like
> golf.
>
> (or has chess developed a handicap system since I last looked?)
The only sensible handicap scheme for chess is to give the stronger
player less time.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Enormous Tree (TM): it's like a tree
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's huge!
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 21:13:14
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On 08 Dec 2007 23:27:56 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Wozza Ports <wozzap@gee_male.com> wrote:
>> what I like about go is that you can have handicaps so a weak player
>> can play a strong player on more or less equal terms, a bit like
>> golf.
>>
>> (or has chess developed a handicap system since I last looked?)
>
>The only sensible handicap scheme for chess is to give the stronger
>player less time.
Actually, that's a fairly absurd and useless handicap scheme, as the
quality of the weaker player's moves will top out after a brief time,
and if the difference in skill is at all considerable, the handicap
will depend more and more on the stronger player's physical skill of
moving pieces and stopping the clock as quickly as possible. Habitual
blitz players would of course have an enormous advantage.
-- Roy L
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 12:28:50
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The only sensible handicap scheme for chess is to give the stronger
>> player less time.
>
> Actually, that's a fairly absurd and useless handicap scheme, as the
> quality of the weaker player's moves will top out after a brief time,
Nonsense. I'm a relatively weak player but I play *much* better chess
given an hour and a half for forty moves (a fairly common tournament
time control) than I do given half an hour or fifteen minutes.
> if the difference in skill is at all considerable, the handicap will
> depend more and more on the stronger player's physical skill of
> moving pieces and stopping the clock as quickly as possible.
> Habitual blitz players would of course have an enormous advantage.
Who said that the stronger player has to have an extremely short
amount of time? It's perfectly possible to give the stronger player
enough time that he doesn't need to scramble around to make his moves
while still having the game finish in a reasonable time. And, if the
strength difference is all that great, the stronger player won't have
much difficulty playing blitz against such awful moves, anyway.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Impossible Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ handy household tool but it can't
exist!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2007 21:48:57
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On 12 Dec 2007 12:28:50 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The only sensible handicap scheme for chess is to give the stronger
>>> player less time.
>>
>> Actually, that's a fairly absurd and useless handicap scheme, as the
>> quality of the weaker player's moves will top out after a brief time,
>
>Nonsense.
It is fact.
>I'm a relatively weak player but I play *much* better chess
>given an hour and a half for forty moves (a fairly common tournament
>time control) than I do given half an hour or fifteen minutes.
How much better? Get back to me when you have measured your Elo point
gain against an adjustable computer opponent. I doubt you could gain
200 Elo that way, unless your rating is under 1000 Elo.
And how much better will your stronger opponent play, also having your
hour and a half to think?
>> if the difference in skill is at all considerable, the handicap will
>> depend more and more on the stronger player's physical skill of
>> moving pieces and stopping the clock as quickly as possible.
>> Habitual blitz players would of course have an enormous advantage.
>
>Who said that the stronger player has to have an extremely short
>amount of time?
That's the whole idea of time handicaps.
>It's perfectly possible to give the stronger player
>enough time that he doesn't need to scramble around to make his moves
>while still having the game finish in a reasonable time.
Maybe you could give some examples of time controls you think
accurately compensate for a given Elo gap.
>And, if the
>strength difference is all that great, the stronger player won't have
>much difficulty playing blitz against such awful moves, anyway.
Exactly. So, how much less than standard blitz time will he need to
play in to compensate the difference in strength?
-- Roy L
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 11:58:12
From: Mike
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In article <[email protected] >, [email protected] says...
> On 08 Dec 2007 23:27:56 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Wozza Ports <wozzap@gee_male.com> wrote:
> >> what I like about go is that you can have handicaps so a weak player
> >> can play a strong player on more or less equal terms, a bit like
> >> golf.
> >>
> >> (or has chess developed a handicap system since I last looked?)
> >
> >The only sensible handicap scheme for chess is to give the stronger
> >player less time.
>
> Actually, that's a fairly absurd and useless handicap scheme, as the
> quality of the weaker player's moves will top out after a brief time,
> and if the difference in skill is at all considerable, the handicap
> will depend more and more on the stronger player's physical skill of
> moving pieces and stopping the clock as quickly as possible. Habitual
> blitz players would of course have an enormous advantage.
>
Also the strong player can think during the weak players thinking time. Unless, of course, some form of temporary
amnesia can be induced while waiting for the weaker player's moves.
Mike
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 14:42:42
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
Mike <[email protected] > wrote:
> Also the strong player can think during the weak players thinking
> time. Unless, of course, some form of temporary amnesia can be
> induced while waiting for the weaker player's moves.
Indeed he can. But, at that point, he does not know what move the
weaker player will make.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal Perforated Postman (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a man who delivers the mail
but it's full of holes and completely
transparent!
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 17:48:43
From:
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
raylopez99 wrote:
>no, this is NOT flamebait, I'm serious.
Whether you are serious or not, it's still low-IQ flambait.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 09:14:02
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 7, 7:20 am, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:39 pm, z1 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > raylopez99 wrote:
> > > .
>
> > idiot
>
> > chess is chess
> > go is go
> > and never shall the twain meet.
>
> Amen. Both are excellent, but they are not really amenable to
> comparison.
Yes, they are. Both games can be solved by a computer, even though
they are arguably NP-complete (math term).
But chess has more pedigre, a bigger library, and more action per
move, as I've stated before.
So chess is superior.
Case closed.
no, this is NOT flamebait, I'm serious.
RL
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 00:29:18
From: Florian
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
raylopez99 wrote:
> Yes, they are. Both games can be solved by a computer, even though
> they are arguably NP-complete (math term).
>
Do you have any sources for this statement? I find it very likely that
both chess and go are not NP-complete at all. It will be very hard to
argue that you can do it better than EXPTIME, so I'm very interested in
the 'arguably' part of your statement.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 23:26:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
Florian <[email protected] > wrote:
> raylopez99 wrote:
>> Yes, they are. Both games can be solved by a computer, even though
>> they are arguably NP-complete (math term).
>
> Do you have any sources for this statement? I find it very likely
> that both chess and go are not NP-complete at all. It will be very
> hard to argue that you can do it better than EXPTIME, so I'm very
> interested in the 'arguably' part of your statement.
When generalized to an nxn boar, chess is EXPTIME-complete;
generalized Go without the ko rule is PSPACE-complete; with different
ko rules, it's either EXPTIME-complete or of unknown complexity.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/cgt/hard.html
So, both generalized chess and go are rather harder than NP-complete,
under the usual complexity-theoretic assumptions (i.e., that EXPTIME
is distinct from NP).
Dave.
--
David Richerby Pickled Windows (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ graphical user interface but it's
preserved in vinegar!
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2007 23:29:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> When generalized to an nxn boar, chess is EXPTIME-complete;
^^^^^^
I think my keyboard is trying to say that it's some kind of
resource-hog. ;-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Nuclear Puzzle (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intriguing conundrum that's made
of atoms!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 14:57:32
From: bear
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
raylopez99 wrote:
> On Dec 7, 7:20 am, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 8:39 pm, z1 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> raylopez99 wrote:
>>>> .
>>> idiot
>>> chess is chess
>>> go is go
>>> and never shall the twain meet.
>> Amen. Both are excellent, but they are not really amenable to
>> comparison.
>
> Yes, they are. Both games can be solved by a computer, even though
> they are arguably NP-complete (math term).
>
> But chess has more pedigre, a bigger library, and more action per
> move, as I've stated before.
>
> So chess is superior.
>
> Case closed.
>
> no, this is NOT flamebait, I'm serious.
>
> RL
Trolls are always fascinated by the same thing.
Like cats with a string.
Ray, fwiw, no one gives a damn.
Get a life, and do something with your time that is productive.
Get off the computer and meet some live people, would be one
simple suggestion.
_-_-
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 07:20:06
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
On Dec 6, 8:39 pm, z1 <[email protected] > wrote:
> raylopez99 wrote:
> > .
>
> idiot
>
> chess is chess
> go is go
> and never shall the twain meet.
Amen. Both are excellent, but they are not really amenable to
comparison.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2007 10:59:27
From: z1
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
zdrakec wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:39 pm, z1 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> raylopez99 wrote:
>>> .
>> idiot
>>
>> chess is chess
>> go is go
>> and never shall the twain meet.
>
> Amen. Both are excellent, but they are not really amenable to
> comparison.
There is also another perspective that comes into play when comparing Go
and Chess.
In fact the difference between the two says something about the
difference between the Western and Asian mindset.
Go requires a more spatial approach, whereas chess is more lineally driven.
It's probable that in Asia Go would have been the only game of it's type
possible. On the other hand tho, there is also Shogi which is
chess-related. So pardon me, we do have Go and 'chess' in Asia.
Now if the West has it's 'shogi' in chess, then where is the West's 'Go'?
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 13:39:27
From: z1
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
raylopez99 wrote:
> .
idiot
chess is chess
go is go
and never shall the twain meet.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 18:40:28
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
z1 <[email protected] > wrote:
> chess is chess
> go is go
> and never shall the twain meet.
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company."
- k Twain
"raylopez99" <[email protected] > wrote in message
> ... Both games can be solved by a computer, even though
> they are arguably NP-complete (math term).
Neither game has been "solved by a computer." There
are merely programs which can -indicate- "solvability."
"NP-completeness" isn't much to crow about, after all...
Yet, let's explore a bit further why Chess is "superior."
(a) Chess computers can provide expert instruction
even in absense or unavailability of a teacher.
(b) Chess rules can declare a draw, whenever there
is insufficient mating material, even with insufficient
time on the clock to establish that fact.
(c) Unless it's blitz chess, the King may not be captured:
only mating is required.
(d) In general, handicaps are not supplied for Chess.
(e) Pawns may promote so there's hope even for the
lowliest-valued pieces in this game.
(f) Chess Players are highly respected in the West,
where it really counts, whereas Go Players are
relegated to obscure and remote Asian corners.
(g) Chess has crucial variants -- such as Siamese Chess --
so pieces may be dropped while enhancing team play.
(h) Typically the Chess Players will "fight on", even from
hopeless positions, because game sharpness allows
for serious blunders even in the endgame.
(i) Chess -endgames- are also more "active" because
there are fewer pieces on the board.
(j) Chess allows for a few position repititions without
forcing immediate draw or loss by superko rule.
All in all, at least 10 reasons prove that Chess is "superior."
What remains is to explain why everybody doesn't play Chess.
> But chess has more pedigre, a bigger library, and more
> action per move, as I've stated before.
Well, no. Chess does not have "a bigger library."
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------
The "Story of Stuff" Story
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
-------------------------------------------------
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 12:16:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
- <[email protected] > wrote:
> (a) Chess computers can provide expert instruction
> even in absense or unavailability of a teacher.
Not true. Computers can't tell you anything more than `If you'd made
this move, you'd have won material.' In cases where the computer's
suggested improvement doesn't win material, the only advice it gives
is `If you'd made this move, my evaluation function would give you a
higher score.' The computer can't tell you *why* it thinks the
position is better, just *that* it thinks it's better. This has very
low didactic value.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disgusting Artificial Car (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-performance luxury car
that's made of plastic but it'll turn
your stomach!
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2007 00:02:37
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
12.12.2007 13:16, David Richerby:
> Computers can't tell you anything more than `If you'd made
> this move, you'd have won material.' In cases where the computer's
> suggested improvement doesn't win material, the only advice it gives
> is `If you'd made this move, my evaluation function would give you a
> higher score.' The computer can't tell you *why* it thinks the
> position is better, just *that* it thinks it's better. This has very
> low didactic value.
>
I don't agree fully. It is true, that computers are not as helpfull as
they could be, that a good human instructor even with much lower
strength would be of more value. But very often when I let games run
through Shredder, the analysis shows me new ideas and ways to play I
didn't think of myself. Of course, he only shows me what he regards as
better and doesn't tell me *why* he evaluates it as superior - this I
have to find out myself. Yet, by doing so, quite often I have the
impression, that I learned something, I wouldn't without the computer's
hint, that from time to time I had to step outside my box of thinking.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 07:12:51
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:+-F*[email protected]...
>- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> (a) Chess computers can provide expert instruction
>> even in absense or unavailability of a teacher.
>
> Not true. Computers can't tell you anything more than `If you'd made
> this move, you'd have won material.' In cases where the computer's
> suggested improvement doesn't win material, the only advice it gives
> is `If you'd made this move, my evaluation function would give you a
> higher score.' The computer can't tell you *why* it thinks the
> position is better, just *that* it thinks it's better.
Who says? The elements that go into the evaluation function are no mystery.
>This has very
> low didactic value.
>
Compared to what? Can you cite some studies showing the superiority
of "expert instruction"? From what I can tell, most of those teachers endorse
computer-based instruction.
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Disgusting Artificial Car (TM): it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-performance luxury car
> that's made of plastic but it'll turn
> your stomach!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 10:22:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:+-F*[email protected]...
>>- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> (a) Chess computers can provide expert instruction
>>> even in absense or unavailability of a teacher.
>>
>> Not true. Computers can't tell you anything more than `If you'd made
>> this move, you'd have won material.' In cases where the computer's
>> suggested improvement doesn't win material, the only advice it gives
>> is `If you'd made this move, my evaluation function would give you a
>> higher score.' The computer can't tell you *why* it thinks the
>> position is better, just *that* it thinks it's better.
>
> Who says? The elements that go into the evaluation function are no
> mystery.
>
>
>>This has very
>> low didactic value.
>>
>
> Compared to what? Can you cite some studies showing the superiority
> of "expert instruction"? From what I can tell, most of those teachers
> endorse
> computer-based instruction.
its true that many teachers have put their materials on DVD. Convekta has
rather a lot of them; Chess School Beginner, and Chess School Advanced, eg.
But those are the 'computer', not the chess-engine. The latter deserves a
different thread since it is infrastructual to chess pedagogy, and not
comparative to other games, which may well contain qualities not found in
chess.
Phil Innes
>>
>> Dave.
>>
>> --
>> David Richerby Disgusting Artificial Car (TM):
>> it's
>> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-performance luxury
>> car
>> that's made of plastic but it'll
>> turn
>> your stomach!
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 00:21:33
From: Justin
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In rec.games.go - <[email protected] > wrote:
: Yet, let's explore a bit further why Chess is "superior."
: (a) Chess computers can provide expert instruction
: even in absense or unavailability of a teacher.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
: (b) Chess rules can declare a draw, whenever there
: is insufficient mating material, even with insufficient
: time on the clock to establish that fact.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
: (c) Unless it's blitz chess, the King may not be captured:
: only mating is required.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
: (d) In general, handicaps are not supplied for Chess.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"? One could easily argue that
the inability to handicap chess is a weakness.
: (e) Pawns may promote so there's hope even for the
: lowliest-valued pieces in this game.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
: (f) Chess Players are highly respected in the West,
: where it really counts, whereas Go Players are
: relegated to obscure and remote Asian corners.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
: (g) Chess has crucial variants -- such as Siamese Chess --
: so pieces may be dropped while enhancing team play.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
: (h) Typically the Chess Players will "fight on", even from
: hopeless positions, because game sharpness allows
: for serious blunders even in the endgame.
Same in go.
: (i) Chess -endgames- are also more "active" because
: there are fewer pieces on the board.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
: (j) Chess allows for a few position repititions without
: forcing immediate draw or loss by superko rule.
How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
Justin
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 01:57:42
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>: Yet, let's explore a bit further why Chess is "superior."
>: (a) Chess computers can provide expert instruction
>: even in absense or unavailability of a teacher.
"Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
In your case this is necessary because you will need to
learn from a computer.
>: (b) Chess rules can declare a draw, whenever there
>: is insufficient mating material, even with insufficient
>: time on the clock to establish that fact.
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
In your case this is necessary because the best you
can hope for is a draw.
>: (c) Unless it's blitz chess, the King may not be captured:
>: only mating is required.
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
In your case this is necessary because you do
not know when your King is being attacked.
>: (d) In general, handicaps are not supplied for Chess.
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"? One could easily
> argue that the inability to handicap chess is a weakness.
In your case this is necessary because you cannot
lose unless you have no handicaps.
>: (e) Pawns may promote so there's hope even for the
>: lowliest-valued pieces in this game.
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
In your case this is necessary because you are a pawn.
>: (f) Chess Players are highly respected in the West,
>: where it really counts, whereas Go Players are
>: relegated to obscure and remote Asian corners.
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
In your case this is necessary because you are in the West.
>: (g) Chess has crucial variants -- such as Siamese Chess --
>: so pieces may be dropped while enhancing team play.
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
In your case this is necessary because you need to belong
to a team.
>: (h) Typically the Chess Players will "fight on", even from
>: hopeless positions, because game sharpness allows
>: for serious blunders even in the endgame.
> Same in go.
No, it is not the same. In Go you must shoot your opponent
when he or she fails to resign at the proper moment.
>: (i) Chess -endgames- are also more "active" because
>: there are fewer pieces on the board.
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
In your case this is necessary because you will play
the part of one of the captured inactive pieces.
>: (j) Chess allows for a few position repititions without
>: forcing immediate draw or loss by superko rule.
> How is this a demonstration of "superiority"?
In your case this is necessary because you don't recognize
when repititions occur.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you click on the website link below, a world map comes up
showing what strange & dangerous things are happening right now
in every country in the entire world & is updated every few minutes.
You can move the map around, zero in on any one area & actually
up-load the story of what is going on.
This 'map' updates every 300 seconds...constantly 24/7.
Click on any icon on the map for text update information.
It's not just about Terrorism - it's about everything happening
every minute some place in the world of terrorism threats,
explosions, airline incidents, etc.
http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 02:26:52
From: Justin
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In rec.games.go - <[email protected] > wrote:
<snip a bunch of sarcastic crap >
So in other words you have no idea what you're talking about.
Got it, thanks.
-Justin
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 06:08:56
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
"Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
> So in other words you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why don't you provide us an example of having an idea
about what you're talking about. Then maybe we'll know better.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Does this take huge balls or just fewer brain cells?
... ok you sporty guys...here�s the latest extreme challenge:
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=4262
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 10:40:41
From: Justin
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In rec.games.go - <[email protected] > wrote:
: Why don't you provide us an example of having an idea
: about what you're talking about. Then maybe we'll know better.
Why don't you provide an answer to my question regarding your claims of
chess superiority? You made a list of reasons, a few of them loaded with
blatant ignorance about go and the rest of them depthless. I called you
on it and you ran to mommy.
For example, you claimed the teaching ability of computers as evidence for
the superiority of chess. I'm curious why you think that this is evidence
of superiority rather than say, inferiority.
Computers can teach tic-tac-toe better than they can teach chess, does
this mean tic-tac-toe is better than chess? According to your argument,
the answer is yes. Computers can't teach us about life (not the game, the
real-world life) very well at all but I would suggest that life is more
interesting than chess (and go).
Perhaps you're just using your own personal definition of "better", but
if so you should make that clear and define it first.
Justin
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 11:47:25
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>: Why don't you provide us an example of having an idea
>: about what you're talking about. Then maybe we'll know better.
"Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Why don't you provide an answer to my question regarding your
> claims of chess superiority? You made a list of reasons, a few
> of them loaded with blatant ignorance about go and the rest of
> them depthless. I called you on it and you ran to mommy.
You asked for a demonstration, but you didn't pay for it.
You haven't illustrated what you mean by having an idea about
what you're talking about. Whose mommy did I run to?
> For example, you claimed the teaching ability of computers
> as evidence for the superiority of chess. I'm curious why you
> think that this is evidence of superiority rather than say, inferiority.
Ever consider that Chess was being limited to the larger
metropolitan centers? Ever consider that internet access is
not permitted for elementary school children in most schools?
A strong program on a cheap computer can supply patterns
of proper response in positions for large numbers of students.
Teachers can expand coverage with efficient Chess instruction.
Using computers for Go is not yet a reliable means for patterns.
> Computers can teach tic-tac-toe better than they can teach
> chess, does this mean tic-tac-toe is better than chess?
> According to your argument, the answer is yes.
This Subject: line identifies only Chess and Go. Don't
wander off topic. Tic-Tac-Toe is not an "instructional game"
-- it is child's play -- and teachers aren't necessary for TTT.
> Computers can't teach us about life (not the game, the real-world
> life) very well at all but I would suggest that life is more interesting
> than chess (and go).
People who really live "real-world life" built and programmed
the real-world computers. They earned a real-world living at it.
If you need some instruction about life I suggest that you find a
guru, mentor or spirit-guide. But life is an infinite prospect, and
you can't compare the infinite with the finite games very well.
> Perhaps you're just using your own personal definition of "better",
> but if so you should make that clear and define it first.
Here are definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:
=====================
A. adj. The comparative degree of GOOD (which see for phrases and
idiomatic uses in which the force of better corresponds with that of
the positive adj.): more good.
I. As simple adjective.
1. Of greater excellence, of superior quality. a. Said of
persons, in respect of physical, mental, or esp. moral
qualities; also, of social standing.
b. Said of things, in respect of their essential qualities.
c. Comb. with ns. used attrib., as better-class, -quality,
-type.
d. In phrases used attrib., as better-than-average,
better-than-chance.
2. Of persons and things: More profitable, useful, or suitable for
a purpose; more eligible or desirable. Of persons: Kinder, more
beneficent.
3. Of greater amount: a. More. b. Larger, greater; esp. in better
half, part, etc.
c. Hence, better half: orig. my better half, the more than
half of my being; said of a very close and intimate friend
(cf. `the better part of me' Shakes.; `me� partem anim�,'
`anim� dimidium me�' Horace; `anim� partem...nostr� majorem'
Statius); esp. (after Sidney) used for `my husband' or
`wife'; now, jocularly appropriated to the latter. Formerly
also applied to the soul, as the better part of man.
4. a. In the predicate, after be, the neuter adj. formerly
interchanged with the adv. bet, and its grammatical character is
still dubious: the positive of `it is better to go' may be either
`it is good' or `it is well.' Cf. BET adv. 2. The dubiety is still
greater in elliptical expressions ... See below, B3.
b. In the idiomatic I, we, you, he, etc. had better, the
original construction was me, us, etc. were betere (or bet) =
it would be more advantageous for me, etc. (Cf. me is betere,
etc. in 4.) The dat. pronoun was subsequently changed into the
nominative, I, we, were better (perh. because in ns. the two
cases were no longer distinguished). Finally this was given up
for the current I had better = I should have or hold it better,
to do, etc. (Mr. F. Hall has shown that in these changes,
better followed in the main the analogy of liefer and rather.)
See HAVE. you'd better believe: you may be assured. colloq.
(orig. U.S.).
(b) With had omitted (occas. with pronoun also omitted). colloq.
(orig. U.S.).
c. to be better (in health, estate, etc.): see B4.
5. Phrases. {dag}(to have) the better hand: i.e. `the upper hand,'
the superiority. to be better than one's word: to do more than one
has promised. better cheap: see CHEAP n. no better than (one)
should (or ought to) be, of doubtful moral character, (usu.) of
easy virtue.
II. absol. passing into a substantive.
6. absol. Something better; that which is better. for better, for
worse: see WORSE B. 3a; to go (one) better: see GO v. 36.
7. n. with poss. pron.: One's superior: a. in some personal
quality or attainment; b. in rank or station. In the latter sense,
now only in the plural, which was however from 16th to 18th c.
often applied to a single person.
8. the better: the superiority or mastery; now chiefly in to get
the better of. Also fig. (Cf. BEST 9a.)
{dag}9. with the better: with addition; and more. Obs.
B. adv.
[The original adverbial form was BET, which survived till c1600.
See that word as to its gradual displacement by better.]
1. In a more excellent way, in a superior manner.
2. a. In a superior degree.
{dag}b. Rather. Obs.
c. More, in addition. arch. and dial.
3. In the predicate, after be, the adv. and adj. run together: see
A4. In some cases the adverbial character seems more prominent.
4. a. to be better: to be improved in health, esp. of
convalescence after an illness. (In northern use, to be well
again, as in quite better, quite well again, fully recovered.) to
get better: to amend, recover. (The orig. const. was `him is bet
or better,' i.e. it is better to or with him. See WELL.)
{dag}b. to be the better: to be profited or advantaged. arch.
and dial.
5. Comb. With adjs. and pples.: usually (for syntactical
clearness) written with a hyphen. a. With past and pres. pples.
as compar. of WELL: as, better-advised, -affected, -balanced,
-behaved, -born, -considered, -dressed, -informed, -regulated,
-seasoned, etc.; better-becoming, -knowing, -liking, -looking;
sometimes approaching the sense `more fully, more.' b. In
parasynthetic comb. formed on a n. with attribute; as,
better-humoured, i.e. (better humour) + -ed; so better-natured,
-omened, -principled, -witted, etc.
6. Phrases. to think better of: a. (a thing); to give it
reconsideration with the result of deciding more wisely.
b. (a person): to form a better opinion of him.
7. better off, comp. of well off: see OFF adv. 11. Also as adj.
phr. and absol. as n.
=====================
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Drivers could pay extra for life in fast lane
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article3025856.ece
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 14:51:28
From: Justin
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In rec.games.go - <[email protected] > wrote:
: You asked for a demonstration, but you didn't pay for it.
You posted your specious claims first, I just asked you to back them up.
If you don't have any evidence or desire then don't bother in the first
place.
: Ever consider that Chess was being limited to the larger
: metropolitan centers? Ever consider that internet access is
: not permitted for elementary school children in most schools?
: A strong program on a cheap computer can supply patterns
: of proper response in positions for large numbers of students.
: Teachers can expand coverage with efficient Chess instruction.
: Using computers for Go is not yet a reliable means for patterns.
I'm not arguing whether computers are better teachers of chess, that is
probably true.
I'm asking why, assuming it's true, it makes chess superior.
Quoting the dictionary definition of "superior" doesn't get you anything
since you could have just quoted the dictionary definition of any
adjective you like but it would not mean that the adjective applied to
chess.
Justin
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 15:50:59
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>: You asked for a demonstration, but you didn't pay for it.
"Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You posted your specious claims first, I just asked you
> to back them up. If you don't have any evidence or desire
> then don't bother in the first place.
What would qualify as "evidence" -- some URL ?
Why is it only you who can make rules for public speech?
>: Ever consider that Chess was being limited to the larger
>: metropolitan centers? Ever consider that internet access is
>: not permitted for elementary school children in most schools?
>: A strong program on a cheap computer can supply patterns
>: of proper response in positions for large numbers of students.
>: Teachers can expand coverage with efficient Chess instruction.
>: Using computers for Go is not yet a reliable means for patterns.
> I'm not arguing whether computers are better teachers of chess,
> that is probably true.
> I'm asking why, assuming it's true, it makes chess superior.
Things may be compared, if given only a context.
I thought that you knew this. Here our context concerns
the use of "instructional games" for a school curriculum;
perhaps a particular context which will never trouble you...
> Quoting the dictionary definition of "superior" doesn't get
> you anything since you could have just quoted the dictionary
> definition of any adjective you like but it would not mean that
> the adjective applied to chess.
I wasn't aware that it might be possible to "get anything"
by means of discourse on newsgroups with random strangers.
Apparently you harbor some ulterior agenda to "get anything."
Similar to Checkers, optimal games of Chess might be shown
to be a draw. To truly appreciate Chess neither player would
"get anything." This also renders Chess "superior" -- of course.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------
Happy Holidays from Rail Europe
http://downloads.raileurope.com/holidayCard/06_christmas_card.html
-------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 21:55:19
From: Justin
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In rec.games.go - <[email protected] > wrote:
: What would qualify as "evidence" -- some URL ?
Two things:
(1) An explanation of how the concepts by which superiority is judged are
applied to both chess and go.
(2) An explanation of how chess fulfills those concepts better.
: Why is it only you who can make rules for public speech?
I don't make the rules. Like I said, you posted your claims first. If
you're unwilling to back them up just say so, no need to duck and dodge
the way you are.
: Things may be compared, if given only a context.
: I thought that you knew this. Here our context concerns
: the use of "instructional games" for a school curriculum;
: perhaps a particular context which will never trouble you...
This context is not mentioned in the thread. The thread begins with a
vague statement about flame bait and then jumps around until z1 mentions
Asian and Western mindsets. Somewhere in there raylopez99 mentioned
superiority but with little evidence and that evidence was pulled out of
his ass.
Then you jumped in and mentioned your list. There was no discussion
of '"instructional games" for a school curriculum' in your first post and
in fact it's never been mentioned until just now.
Make sure that next time you try to have an argument you set the stage
right beforehand so won't need to scramble like you have.
Justin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 01:35:28
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>: What would qualify as "evidence" -- some URL ?
"Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
>Two things:
>
> (1) An explanation of how the concepts by which superiority
> is judged are applied to both chess and go.
>
> (2) An explanation of how chess fulfills those concepts better.
You seem to seek an absolute standard when I have already
explained that the assessment of "superiority" is context-dependent.
Here I clarified that context for the specific point-at-issue to mean
pedagogical suitability for instructional games in a school classroom.
>: Why is it only you who can make rules for public speech?
> I don't make the rules. Like I said, you posted your claims first.
> If you're unwilling to back them up just say so, no need to duck
> and dodge the way you are.
You just made a rule when you stated that you don't make the rules.
Meanwhile, I don't find your disputation of my claims: so they stand.
>: Things may be compared, if given only a context.
>: I thought that you knew this. Here our context concerns
>: the use of "instructional games" for a school curriculum;
>: perhaps a particular context which will never trouble you...
> This context is not mentioned in the thread. The thread begins
> with a vague statement about flame bait and then jumps around
> until z1 mentions Asian and Western mindsets. Somewhere in
> there raylopez99 mentioned superiority but with little evidence
> and that evidence was pulled out of his ass.
Strawman misdirection fallacy. I am not accountable for what
"z1" and "raylopez99" wish to say. It is my assertion that context
will be required to obtain any meaningful interpretation of this topic.
> Then you jumped in and mentioned your list. There was no
> discussion of '"instructional games" for a school curriculum' in
> your first post and in fact it's never been mentioned until just now.
Alrighty then, it's being mentioned just now. I'm glad we
cleared up that point completely, carefully, and coherently.
> Make sure that next time you try to have an argument you set the
> stage right beforehand so won't need to scramble like you have.
Ah, you pretended not to make rules but we see you reverting
to the furtive and erroneous ways of your miserable hypocritical self.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"raylopez99" <[email protected] > wrote:
> If you do a brain scan using PET, MRI and the like, you'll find (I
> posit) that chess is "superior" to getting the blood flowing to your
> brain. Because it's more tactical. Go is like memorizing a phone
> book: a dull and thankless task, akin to watching those little metal
> balls fall in a pachinko parlour.
Though difficult to argue against the observation that Go Players
live longer than Chess Players and continue to remain as strong title
holders well into older age. All the same Chess is "superior" because
younger people generally have an opportunity to establish many wins.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
( Because Allah is "the most compassionate" God )
Father killed daughter for not wearing hijab
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071211175557.p3d3kaah&show_article=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 13:24:17
From: Justin
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In rec.games.go - <[email protected] > wrote:
: Alrighty then, it's being mentioned just now. I'm glad we
: cleared up that point completely, carefully, and coherently.
For future reference, make sure you make sure your narrow context-specific
definitions are in the clear from the outset. This is a basic rule of any
good discussion.
: Though difficult to argue against the observation that Go Players
: live longer than Chess Players and continue to remain as strong title
: holders well into older age. All the same Chess is "superior" because
: younger people generally have an opportunity to establish many wins.
Is this a new context of "superior" which you haven't mentioned yet?
How does the fact that young people can establish many wins make chess
"superior"?
Justin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 13:53:08
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
"Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
> For future reference, make sure you make sure your narrow
> context-specific definitions are in the clear from the outset.
> This is a basic rule of any good discussion.
School pedagogy is not a narrow context. Attendance is
mandatory in most cultures worldwide, home-schooling aside,
and an experience shared by all who participate in newsgroups.
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>: Though difficult to argue against the observation that Go Players
>: live longer than Chess Players and continue to remain as strong title
>: holders well into older age. All the same Chess is "superior" because
>: younger people generally have an opportunity to establish many wins.
> Is this a new context of "superior" which you haven't mentioned yet?
Lifespan is also a context shared by all who live long lives.
> How does the fact that young people can establish many wins
> make chess "superior"?
It's "superior" for the young people, also an experience
to which all may recollect, and thereby a common context.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------
Pain Ray: Don't Hold Your Breath
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/active-denial-a.html#more
-----------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 14:55:21
From: Justin
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
In rec.games.go - <[email protected] > wrote:
: It's "superior" for the young people, also an experience
: to which all may recollect, and thereby a common context.
You still haven't said how it's superior.
Justin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 18:22:32
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>: It's "superior" for the young people, also an experience
>: to which all may recollect, and thereby a common context.
"Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You still haven't said how it's superior.
More people have the experience of being young than old.
So the context is less narrow for young people than for old.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------
Time for War Crime Trials for Blair, Brown
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2612
------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 11:15:45
From: Justin
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
: "Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
: You still haven't said how it's superior.
In rec.games.go - <[email protected] > wrote:
: More people have the experience of being young than old.
: So the context is less narrow for young people than for old.
You'll look less foolish if you just come out and say "I don't know what
I'm talking about" than if you keep trying to bluff with these
nonsequiturs.
Justin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 19:25:27
From: -
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
>: "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>: You still haven't said how it's superior.
> "-" <[email protected]> wrote:
>: More people have the experience of being young than old.
>: So the context is less narrow for young people than for old.
"Justin" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You'll look less foolish if you just come out and say "I don't
> know what I'm talking about" than if you keep trying to bluff
> with these nonsequiturs.
Having knowlege concerning what I'm talking about is not
a prerequisite for issuing speech act utterances that are true, or
speech act utterances that remain valid by absense of refutation.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------
Uganda Orders Probe Into Ebola Origin - 32 Now Dead
http://allafrica.com/stories/200712121257.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 01:24:46
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: "Chess is superior to Go" -- Comment
|
I suggest that all rec.games.go readers killfile anything crossposted
to rec.games.chess.* and that all rec.games.chess.* readers killfile
anything crossposted to rec.games.go. All such post are loq-IQ
flamebait.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
