| |
Main
Date: 04 Mar 2008 01:50:14
From: raylopez99
Subject: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
Where are all the creative posters of yesteryear? Nothing but spam
now. The intelligensia have moved on, now that robots have solved the
game of chess. Not that the Go board is much more lively...
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 09:24:56
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
On 5, 9:11=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Eventually, humans and machines should both play perfectly, in part
> > because they teach each other the game.
>
> The conclusion may or may not be true but it's in no way true that two
> people who teach each other something will end up at perfection.
> Consider Smith and Jones, ooned on a desert island, who find achessset =
and a copy of the FIDE laws washed up on the beach. =A0Having
> nothing better to do, they play an awful lot ofchessuntil they get
> rescued five years later.
May be One use Cheating Techniques to win the Opponent. Once I was
playing Chess with a child who win by Cheating.
Child: Lets play Chess
Myself: OK, (and game starts)
Child: You play good
Myself: Yes I am winning
Child: Look there is a big Lizard
Myself: Where (and I looked at the wall)
Child Oh you missed that, I will tell again when it comes.
Myself : Ok Lets Continue the game
(After playing few moves I found my Rook at a1 is not there. I said )
Myself: Where is my Rook?
Child: I killed it early in the game.
(And the Child win the game.)
Then we played many games in each game the Child used to say Look
there is a Lizard and again he used to take my pieces. But atlast I
was able to catch his trick.
Then I said I have understood you were cheating so long. When I used
to see the wall you were taking my pieces. And we had a great laugh.
> Back in civilization, do you think either of them will be a strongchesspla=
yer? =A0I think it's unlikely. =A0They'll have become pretty good
> at countering each other's schemes but these schemes might not
> actually be very good and be based on all kinds of oddities like
> Jones's hatred of knight forks and willingness to sacrifice his rooks
> to get Smith's knights off the board. =A0They might even have decided
> that `Chessis a boring draw because, once White has pawns on a3, b4,
> c3, d4, e3, f4, g3 and h4, it's impossible to break through.'
> Suddenly confronted by the `new' ideas from the rest of the world ofchess,=
I suspect they'll do very bady for a long time.
>
> Humans and computers might be doing exactly the same thing as Smith
> and Jones. =A0We're getting very good at countering each other's schemes
> but who knows how good those schemes actually are? =A0Perhaps we're very
> slowly inching our way up the wrong hill.
>
Excellent I really Liked this idea.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 08:38:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
On 5, 11:11 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Eventually, humans and machines should both play perfectly, in part
> > because they teach each other the game.
>
> The conclusion may or may not be true but it's in no way true that two
> people who teach each other something will end up at perfection.
> Consider Smith and Jones, ooned on a desert island, who find a
> chess set and a copy of the FIDE laws washed up on the beach. Having
> nothing better to do, they play an awful lot of chess until they get
> rescued five years later.
>
> Back in civilization, do you think either of them will be a strong
> chess player? I think it's unlikely. They'll have become pretty good
> at countering each other's schemes but these schemes might not
> actually be very good and be based on all kinds of oddities like
> Jones's hatred of knight forks and willingness to sacrifice his rooks
> to get Smith's knights off the board. They might even have decided
> that `Chess is a boring draw because, once White has pawns on a3, b4,
> c3, d4, e3, f4, g3 and h4, it's impossible to break through.'
> Suddenly confronted by the `new' ideas from the rest of the world of
> chess, I suspect they'll do very bady for a long time.
>
> Humans and computers might be doing exactly the same thing as Smith
> and Jones. We're getting very good at countering each other's schemes
> but who knows how good those schemes actually are? Perhaps we're very
> slowly inching our way up the wrong hill.
This is true but we cannot be inching up the
"wrong hill" because of endgame table bases.
No matter how poorly or how well programmers
are doing in the early phases of the game, "we"
are clearly making headway from the back end.
It is only a matter of time now. When I am
314 years old, I will look back and say, "see, I
told you so! I told you that Wal-t would be
selling an electronic device that not only plays
chess, but can retrieve the endgame and
middlegame table bases with 16 men or fewer.
I just didn't know that it would cost so many
Wal-lars (i.e. future dollars)...".
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 14:41:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
On 4, 5:25 pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 4, 8:17 am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
>
> > How about Ray vs Helpbot in a game of random chess ? Make your moves
> > here on this board like ivan vs getclub..
>
> > You two should play this game , it would be exciting .....
>
> We can play statistically, using Elo's chart. I am rated, on a very
> good day, about USCF 2000, but let's just say USCF 1950 when I'm
> rusty. So Helpbot probably would beat me, from what I can tell, most
> of the time.
You need to take a closer look; I think help
bot is maybe USCF 1600 at best; even the
GetClub Beginner level beats him, now and
then!
More to the point, even if help bot knew a
lot about regular chess, what SAT W-7 has
proposed is *random chess* -- a whole
different ball game. All of help bot's years
of studying chess openings are of no use
here; his in-depth understanding of the
Slobovsky variation in the Hinkleberg
Attack line of the open Huckleberry
Exchange variation, useless. I think you
can take him... .
-- casual observer
|
| | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 16:25:01
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
+ i already set the chess pieces up ...
Set a board up and set the pieces where i have and tell me what you
think .. Does white or black have the advantage ?
A game like this mite be interesting ..
I will play one of you if you want ...
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 14:25:00
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
On 4, 8:17=A0am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> How about Ray vs Helpbot in a game of random chess =A0? =A0 Make your move=
s
> here on this board like ivan vs getclub..
>
> You two should play this game , it would be exciting .....
We can play statistically, using Elo's chart. I am rated, on a very
good day, about USCF 2000, but let's just say USCF 1950 when I'm
rusty. So Helpbot probably would beat me, from what I can tell, most
of the time.
RL
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 08:17:43
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
How about Ray vs Helpbot in a game of random chess ? Make your moves
here on this board like ivan vs getclub..
No Castling in this game ...
I just pulled the pieces out of a hat ...
Who wants white and who wants black ?
Pawns all the same....
White ..
A-I = Knight .... D-I = Bishop
B-I =King .....E-I= Queen C-I=Rook
.........F-I=Knight
G-I= Bishop and H-I=Rook
Blacks set up is ..
A-8= Bishop
B-8 = Knight
C-8= Queen
D-8=Bishop
E-8=Rook
F-8=Knight
G-8=Rook
H-8= King
No castling and do you too want to play this game ? You should right
here on this discussion board ...
Who has a better chess brain , Helpbot or Ray , this game would be
interesting to everyone and liven this place up....
Think about it ..
I have no idea who has the advantage in this set up ...
If i was black id move b-7 to b-6 putting pressure on whites g-2 pawn
and h-I rook.
As white my first move would be F-2 to F-3 pawn to stop the above ..
You two should play this game , it would be exciting .....
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 06:47:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
On 4, 9:30 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
> fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
> games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
> Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
> computers will make us all obsolete," he told me.
What "Bobby" missed is that even now, weak
players can see the analysis on their computer
screens, but they cannot always *understand* it.
In another recent thread here in rgc, for
instance, one player could not comprehend why
his "Ivan" computer was indicating the capture
of a *defended* pawn by a Knight; this sort of
question is easily answered by a grandmaster,
but currently, few if any computers can do more
than show something like: "24. Nxd5 Bh4,
-- 2.14".
On the other hand, chess grandmasters are
now "obsolete" in that what was once routinely
accepted based on their erroneous opinions,
has now been easily refuted by brute force
computation, thanks to these monstrosities.
One issue which afflicts even the strongest
grandmasters, just like their weaker brethren,
is erroneous thinking along lines of "this
attack cannot break through such and such
perfect fortress". The point is that often it is
possible to break through a "perfect" fortress
by simply transferring the move so the fortress
is not quite so perfect anymore. In watching
top-level chess programs play, I see this idea
come into play time and again; the programs
may not understand what they are doing, as
such, but they do understand that a threefold
repetition of position scores as a draw, while
messing around keeps their nominal edge... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 06:30:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
IS CHESS DYING?
This topic is addressed in chapter 15 of THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by
GM Larry Evans.
Also see: http://tinyurl.com/2fdrth
Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
computers will make us all obsolete," he told me.
-- THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED (ch Chess Life, page 19).
raylopez99 wrote:
> Where are all the creative posters of yesteryear? Nothing but spam
> now. The intelligensia have moved on, now that robots have solved the
> game of chess. Not that the Go board is much more lively...
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 08:21:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:785e7f91-8bf3-42fa-81fb-5bd80c03c35a@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> IS CHESS DYING?
>
> This topic is addressed in chapter 15 of THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by
> GM Larry Evans.
>
> Also see: http://tinyurl.com/2fdrth
>
> Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
> fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
> games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
> Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
> computers will make us all obsolete," he told me.
> -- THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED (ch Chess Life, page 19).
>
So much Thanatos! Not enough Eros. Tal had a very different point of view -
that OTB it was necessary to play chess, and any fool could find something
better the next day!
Sorry for the rhyme. Phil
>
>
> raylopez99 wrote:
>> Where are all the creative posters of yesteryear? Nothing but spam
>> now. The intelligensia have moved on, now that robots have solved the
>> game of chess. Not that the Go board is much more lively...
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 08:45:39
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
> So much Thanatos! Not enough Eros. Tal had a very different point of
> view - that OTB it was necessary to play chess, and any fool could find
> something better the next day!
Not only that, but as computers exhaust the limits of their brute force,
humans may regain some ground.
Eventually, humans and machines should both play perfectly, in part because
they teach each other the game.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 16:11:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Dead board = dead board (bored) game!
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Eventually, humans and machines should both play perfectly, in part
> because they teach each other the game.
The conclusion may or may not be true but it's in no way true that two
people who teach each other something will end up at perfection.
Consider Smith and Jones, ooned on a desert island, who find a
chess set and a copy of the FIDE laws washed up on the beach. Having
nothing better to do, they play an awful lot of chess until they get
rescued five years later.
Back in civilization, do you think either of them will be a strong
chess player? I think it's unlikely. They'll have become pretty good
at countering each other's schemes but these schemes might not
actually be very good and be based on all kinds of oddities like
Jones's hatred of knight forks and willingness to sacrifice his rooks
to get Smith's knights off the board. They might even have decided
that `Chess is a boring draw because, once White has pawns on a3, b4,
c3, d4, e3, f4, g3 and h4, it's impossible to break through.'
Suddenly confronted by the `new' ideas from the rest of the world of
chess, I suspect they'll do very bady for a long time.
Humans and computers might be doing exactly the same thing as Smith
and Jones. We're getting very good at countering each other's schemes
but who knows how good those schemes actually are? Perhaps we're very
slowly inching our way up the wrong hill.
And please trim all that irrelevant shit out of your signature. Four
lines is quite enough.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mexi-Boss (TM): it's like a middle
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ manager that comes from Mexico!
|
|
