Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:37:48 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 14:59:57, Uri Blass wrote: >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 You have my aye in all aspects! Thanks so much. "On both sides" -- that was it! Rolf Tueschen
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.