Has chess turned into mental bodybuilding?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

With computers having all but solved the game, are the strongest players
simply going to be those who train the best against maximum machine
resistance?

Looks that way.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:bZ_7e.15979$mp6.766856@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> With computers having all but solved the game, are the strongest players
> simply going to be those who train the best against maximum machine
> resistance?
>
> Looks that way.
>
[snip]
Do you get paid for the hits to the sites you plug in your sig...or do you own
them?

LSD
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Ray Gordon wrote:
> With computers having all but solved the game, are the strongest players
> simply going to be those who train the best against maximum machine
> resistance?
>
> Looks that way.
>

First off your initial comment is begging the question. Computers have
by no means nor are they even under the current architecture even
capable of solving chess.

I am not aware of any top grandmasters who say they play against Fritz
or any of the machines regularly. What they do do is use the database
functions in chessbase and other programs along with fritz to double
check analysis and point the way to interesting lines.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

With computers having all but solved the game

Another disingenuous statement from Ray.

I composed a selfmate in 15 that passed muster on my computer (within
fast solving constraints - in the case of a s#15 - 7 days of computer
work!), but the human editor I sent it to cooked it! The upside of the
story is that he found a wonderful 2 solution selfmate in 15, in one
case sacrificing the queen, the other, the bishop. Two human minds
easily outbeat the computer.

Whatever happened, BTW, to that 2000+ bullet rating, your "seeing
everything," and the GM in 5 years prophecy, Gordo? Still making stupid
bets on it?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

jamesrynd@aol.com wrote:
> With computers having all but solved the game
>
> Another disingenuous statement from Ray.
>
> I composed a selfmate in 15 that passed muster on my computer (within
> fast solving constraints - in the case of a s#15 - 7 days of computer
> work!), but the human editor I sent it to cooked it! The upside of
the
> story is that he found a wonderful 2 solution selfmate in 15, in one
> case sacrificing the queen, the other, the bishop. Two human minds
> easily outbeat the computer.
>
Well, I supposed, from noting David Brown's problem column in Chess
Life, that multiple solutions are allowed in helpmates.

> Whatever happened, BTW, to that 2000+ bullet rating, your "seeing
> everything," and the GM in 5 years prophecy, Gordo? Still making
stupid
> bets on it?

Aw, come on. Calling someone "Fatty" in Spanish is not nice.

David Ames
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

That may not be solving
the game, but it's damn close.

No it isn't. Do you practice such foolish nonsense or does it come to
you naturally?

Solving the game = predicting the outcome from move 1, given any future
possibility.

Now go back and pretend you have seduced Jeri Ryan.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

>> With computers having all but solved the game, are the strongest players
>> simply going to be those who train the best against maximum machine
>> resistance?
>>
>> Looks that way.
>>
>
> First off your initial comment is begging the question. Computers have by
> no means nor are they even under the current architecture even capable of
> solving chess.

Yet they rarely draw winning positions or lose drawing positions. The only
way to beat them is "wire to wire."


> I am not aware of any top grandmasters who say they play against Fritz or
> any of the machines regularly. What they do do is use the database
> functions in chessbase and other programs along with fritz to double check
> analysis and point the way to interesting lines.

I saw a top GM lose 19 out of 20 games at three minutes per side against a
computer on ICC once. It was incredible.

Even Kasparov has never beaten Deep Blue as Black. That may not be solving
the game, but it's damn close.

I find it far more instructive to train against 2800 strength computers than
my human peers.


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

> I composed a selfmate in 15 that passed muster on my computer (within
> fast solving constraints - in the case of a s#15 - 7 days of computer
> work!), but the human editor I sent it to cooked it! The upside of the
> story is that he found a wonderful 2 solution selfmate in 15, in one
> case sacrificing the queen, the other, the bishop. Two human minds
> easily outbeat the computer.

Yet computers now play stronger than the world champion.


> Whatever happened, BTW, to that 2000+ bullet rating, your "seeing
> everything,"

On a good day! Seriously, I'm still peaking over 2000 bullet on Playchess,
though I spend more time between 1950-1975.

>and the GM in 5 years prophecy, <snip>? Still making stupid
> bets on it?

No one took me up on the first bet.

Not that you'd care, but I am able to train quite a bit these days. Lately
I've been playing nothing but computers that are 2700+ strength on the
servers (probably about 2500 FIDE). I managed to defeat two of them in a
row on Friday, and usually can stay even with them for the first 20 moves or
so.

My goal is to use the computers to extend my opening book well beyond
published theory, then go back into playing against human competition. Of
course, that's a long-term thing, so any of the freaks here who focus on the
here and now wouldn't be particularly impressed.

At this point I'd be more surprised if I didn't wind up a GM than if I did.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

I find it far more instructive to train against 2800 strength computers
than my human peers.

The FMs and IMs I know would indicate that that is extremely poor
practice. They use computers to check analysis mainly. If they don't
feel that an opponent rated 400-500 points above them is useful to help
them learn, it would seem odd that it would be helpful for someone
rated 1000 points below.

A 1900-2000 rating on Playchess is a relatively weak A player in my
estimation. They seem to be about 100 points high compared to OTB. That
doesn't seem like much progress, given the continual crowing you do
here about being the next American GM, and so on.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

> The FMs and IMs I know would indicate that that is extremely poor
> practice. They use computers to check analysis mainly. If they don't
> feel that an opponent rated 400-500 points above them is useful to help
> them learn, it would seem odd that it would be helpful for someone
> rated 1000 points below.
>
> A 1900-2000 rating on Playchess is a relatively weak A player in my
> estimation. They seem to be about 100 points high compared to OTB. That
> doesn't seem like much progress, given the continual crowing you do
> here about being the next American GM, and so on.

The one-minute rating peaked around 2050 before I started training against
the machines. That's also with a slightly slow mouse and computer.

Even five years is a long time, and my projections are based on my continued
ability to train 50+ hours a week for several years, which may or may not
occur.

The original point of my post is that chess is much more like bodybuilding
now than the "art" we used to think it was prior to the computer era.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

> than the "art" we used to think it was prior to the computer era.

"Who can measure the loveliness of a rose?" asked Anthony Santasiere in
a Chess Life article that protested the introduction of the Elo System
of rating in 1960 or so. And yet, today, Elo is everything, and
"beautiful" play is measured only by its results, win, loss, or draw.

Get with the times, man. You're so 19th-century in your thinking.

🙂
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

The opening is just the beginning. A Master chess player is a Master at
all phases of the game (Openings, Middle, Endgames, and Tactics).
Granted that understanding openings is important because if you open
well, it helps with the middle game but just stressing the opening is
not going to make someone a GM.

I think that you do have a good idea to play against strong computers
since they can point out flaws as you go along and then you try to
remember what you did wrong and try another path. I can remember a few
times when someone I was playing against would make a mistake that I
did previously in the same sort of opening and having had the computer
refute my move helped in that game since I remembered what the computer
played against me.

Good luck :)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> With computers having all but solved the game, are the strongest
players
> >> simply going to be those who train the best against maximum
machine
> >> resistance?
> >>
> >> Looks that way.
> >>
> >
> > First off your initial comment is begging the question. Computers
have by
> > no means nor are they even under the current architecture even
capable of
> > solving chess.
http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=97cfdd9a1e35339a

> Yet they rarely draw winning positions or lose drawing positions.
The only
> way to beat them is "wire to wire."
http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=97cfdd9a1e35339a
>
> > I am not aware of any top grandmasters who say they play against
Fritz or
> > any of the machines regularly. What they do do is use the database
> > functions in chessbase and other programs along with fritz to
double check
> > analysis and point the way to interesting lines.
>
> I saw a top GM lose 19 out of 20 games at three minutes per side
against a
> computer on ICC once. It was incredible.
>
> Even Kasparov has never beaten Deep Blue as Black. That may not be
solving
> the game, but it's damn close.
>
> I find it far more instructive to train against 2800 strength
computers than
> my human peers.
Train Here
http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=97cfdd9a1e35339a
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
> http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
> Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
> affiliated books!
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your
quest to
> get laid.
>
> Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech
forum.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

> The opening is just the beginning. A Master chess player is a Master at
> all phases of the game (Openings, Middle, Endgames, and Tactics).
> Granted that understanding openings is important because if you open
> well, it helps with the middle game but just stressing the opening is
> not going to make someone a GM.

Depends on how deep into the opening they go.

Here's an idea: play against Fritz at its strongest level, and tell me how
often you lose because you botched an equal or won endgame.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

none wrote:

> I am not aware of any top grandmasters
> who say they play against Fritz or any of
> the machines regularly.

Your lack of awareness doesn't mean much,
dose it?

It would be foolish on the part of the
professional chess players not to take
the advantage of training by playing
regularly seriuous games against the top
chess programs or machines.

I've seen on ICC GMs playing blitz
regularly against the strong programs.
And IM Igor Ivanov played long series'
of blitz games against a program. It
looked to me like studying chess. Igor
was losing the great majority of the games
and he was rather losing his ICC rating.
He didn't care. I know that he truly loves
chess. And that's what counted to him.

When it comes to slow games, I don't
know many statements, not even a single one,
by the leading GMs about not playing against
strong programs during their training sessions.
Do you?

Furthermore, it seems that the great majority
of young players, who got good, starting with
Leko, got strong by playing a lot at home
against computers.

Actually, today, on any level, those who can stand
playing (and losing 🙂 against computers intensively
have a significant edge on those who cannot.

Regards,

Wlod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom