Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:59:57 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 14:41:00, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 13:56:10, Uri Blass wrote: > >> >>I do not think that using book is cheating. >>I believe that there are also GM's who remember some book moves without >>understanding them. > >Before going to you promissing ideas below we must surely consider this aspect. >My comment on it is, that if we are trying to find fair rules in a sport we >should not justify something for one side with the exceptional existence of the >same on the other side. This question here is the most important IMO. Now, we >start directly on GM level, and that is right so. Now, as I repeated often >enough, almost all GM of the top, say 50 players or such, have eidetical >talents. Otherwise they have no chance to come into the top ranks. Now, this is >something you won't read about in chess magazines, simply because the GM won't >talk about it, it's their secret if you want, and the journalists don't even >know what eidetics really is! Recently I read an interview with Karpov, where >this topic was lightly touched after a lost game I think. He said of course he >couldn't remember all the lines, and that he had simply forgotten. You see? I know that humans have weaknesses and they cannot remember every line that they learned. Computers have other weaknesses. I think that a match when both side can use some books is also a fair match. A match when the computer has to use the palm hardware is also a fair match. A match when the computer has not the right to use more than 1 Mbytes memory is also a fair match. Both sides should be defined and have the same rights. If both sides have the rights to use opening that they remember then I see no problem. Now, >there is not much we can say. Where the public doesn't know of edetics at all, a >GM can easily talk about his memory and its holes. But the experts know better >what 'Karpov' means or 'Kasparov', make your choice. That is not having said >that these giants will be able to activate their potential power at will and >always. Some distraction and the level goes down a bit. Look at Kasparov in >Prague. > >So we take such GM with eidetics and compare him/her? with the computer program. >Would you still say, that these are the same or comparable? Of course not, >because even the best book doctors I heard of are no GM and are unable to make >comparable analyses to a human GM. The GM you mentioned might really play a book >line without understanding but he knows when to start his own thinking. Or >perhaps he had accepted a silent draw? ;) > >No, the books in the actual format have a single goal, to get Elo numbers of >2500-2600, after imbreding even 2700 and more. Without them they are in my >personal view at 2350. > >(This number 2350 is personal but with a little background, that is never >discussed by the critics. As I wrote in the first or second posting above the >number is the result _after_ human chessplayers would create a computer related >new chess, and that would be only happening after enough money would be reserved >for that task. I think that if enough money is going to be reserved for that task the 2350 human players will learn about chess and become 2500 players. I believe that most 2350 players can become 2500 players in one year if it is really important for them. The problem is that they know that they cannot live from being 2500 players and they prefer not to work hard in order to be 2500. I am not gambling with you when I just choose 2350 to get you in >some discussions. I discuss the topic having the standards of computerchess in >mind and its destiny. The number is _not_ the actual reality! It's the potential >reality.) Humans have potential to be better players against everyone and not only against computers. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.