Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Computers, Analysis and Theory (Read 19631 times)
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #15 - 06/19/09 at 18:05:16
Post Tools
CraigEvans, et al,

I did not get the chance to reply adequately because I was busy with something else. Yours was a rather lengthy answer, which needs a bit of time to respond to.

However, one thing I can tell you is that my name will be remembered long after I die. Already, the Zilbermints Gambit, 3...Nge7 variation, is played all over the world. True, not all games make it into databases, but that's because some players do not submit game-scores.

The Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense or ZGED, is pretty much alive. I am working on the equivalent of a book about this variation.
So far I have more than 300 games, the largest collection with this line. These include:

Chapter 1: History, 1950-1993
            2: First Zilbermints-Kopiecki Match, 1993
            3: Sawyer Sub-Variation, 9...Nc6 10 Qe1 Bd7
            4:  Exchange Sub-Variation, 9...Nxf3 10 Qxf3
            5:  Playing Against the 9...Nf5 lines
            6:  Counter-Strike Sub-Variation, 9...c5
            7:  Punting the Bishop, 9...h6
            8:  Chicken Line, 9...c6
            9:  Zilbermints Gambit Delayed
           10:  Zilbermints Gambit Avoided, <8...Nd4 altogether
           11:  Related Systems, 6 Bg5 Bb4 7 Bd3 Nc6 and others
           12:  Alternatives to 9 Kh1!
           13:  Miscellaneous Sub-Variations
Afterword
Index of Games
Index of Players
Bibliography

Copyright Lev D. Zilbermints, 1993-present
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #14 - 06/18/09 at 23:42:42
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/18/09 at 21:05:14:
BPaulsen wrote on 06/18/09 at 20:55:38:
The high point of this message board might be the exchanges between Markovich and Gambit. I laugh hard every time I see the "chess cowardice" topic come up.

Grin


How about me and you playing a six-game match on Internet Chess Club, Game/60 ? Or would you rather have it slower time controls, anywhere from Game/5 to Game/30 ?


I let all of my online chess accounts expire, but aside from that - why?

Any training games I play are in variations I feel I'm going to actually run into over the board. Everything else I mess around in.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 587
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #13 - 06/18/09 at 21:58:36
Post Tools
Thank you MNb. Perhaps I'm not insane after all. As always your contribution is appreciated.  Smiley
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10384
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #12 - 06/18/09 at 21:45:23
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/18/09 at 20:59:11:
When we talk about exams, it is OK to prepare before the exam. But it is wrong to write down answers on a piece of paper prior to the exam, hide it in your belt or bra, and then peek at it. You are supposed to use your own head to figure out the answers once the exam starts.


When we talk about OTB chess, it is OK to prepare for the game. That includes the help of a computer. But it is wrong to use electronical devises during the exam, eeh game and then peek at it.
Thank you for undermining your own argument. It takes a brave man to do that and a coward to deny it.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 587
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #11 - 06/18/09 at 21:15:03
Post Tools
Using literature to help you find moves Lev? CHEAT!!! COWARD!!! RUNNING TO YOUR BOOKS INSTEAD OF YOUR BRAINS!!! I COULD BEAT YOU AT A 1/0 GAME WHERE YOU WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO MOVE THE KNIGHT!!!

I don't know why myself, or anyone else, wastes any time posting responses to your messages. You show absolutely no courtesy to anyone, and in honesty, 20 years after your death it is unlikely anyone shall ever remember any of your "contributions" to opening theory which will long-since be defunct, refuted, discredited and acknowledged to be tripe. I might even devote some time to writing this compendium. A few weeks with Rybka should see all your lines suitably busted. Hell, 20 minutes OTB is enough to bust half of it.

The inability to refute one single point of my argument, nor even having the decency to address it, but instead turning to your one-line favourite "cowardice" argument (which makes even less sense than your anti-computer one, if that is indeed possible), proves both my point about books v computers, and also my point about you being a waste of time. I will not in future bother to reply to your junk messages, and I will sit tight and hope that the management here remove you sooner rather than later. You contribute very little of substance and cause a great deal of ill-feeling and trouble to boot.

Quote:
When we talk about exams, it is OK to prepare before the exam. But it is wrong to write down answers on a piece of paper prior to the exam, hide it in your belt or bra, and then peek at it. You are supposed to use your own head to figure out the answers once the exam starts.


You learn 20 moves from a GM's book, you go into the game and after that 20 moves, you are on your own.

You learn 20 moves using a computer, you go into the game and after that 20 moves, you are on your own.

It's probably wise you did not try to counter this argument, because here's the short skinny: you can't. Your argument is flawed, you have failed. The only two possible responses that I will give to your messages in future are:

1) A commentless variation such as (in your ZGED) "9...c6 -+"
2) "Wrong."

I feel that most of your posts can be sufficiently addressed by the above methods, and they will save me wasting too much time dignifying your absolute rubbish here with a reasonable response.

Disgraceful.

EDIT: Quote:
How about...


Even more pathetic.
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #10 - 06/18/09 at 21:05:14
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/18/09 at 20:55:38:
The high point of this message board might be the exchanges between Markovich and Gambit. I laugh hard every time I see the "chess cowardice" topic come up.

Grin


How about me and you playing a six-game match on Internet Chess Club, Game/60 ? Or would you rather have it slower time controls, anywhere from Game/5 to Game/30 ?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #9 - 06/18/09 at 20:59:11
Post Tools
When we talk about exams, it is OK to prepare before the exam. But it is wrong to write down answers on a piece of paper prior to the exam, hide it in your belt or bra, and then peek at it. You are supposed to use your own head to figure out the answers once the exam starts.

The Hand will be good at playing the BDG against you if he so desires.
I shall place my entire large and considerable collection of BDG literature at his disposal and all my BDG contacts to defeat Black.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #8 - 06/18/09 at 20:55:38
Post Tools
The high point of this message board might be the exchanges between Markovich and Gambit. I laugh hard every time I see the "chess cowardice" topic come up.

Grin
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #7 - 06/18/09 at 19:37:32
Post Tools
God, more about cowardice in chess?  And bravery?  Give me a break.  

I fail to see what this discussion serves other giving you the chance to puff out your chest, Lev.  Why don't we all just stipulate that you are the bravest chess player that ever was or ever will be, and move on to something interesting?

@The Hand:  So fine, play the BDG!  Be my guest.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #6 - 06/18/09 at 17:46:23
Post Tools
A coward runs to his computer to help him, a brave man uses his own brains.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 587
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #5 - 06/18/09 at 17:24:34
Post Tools
Still not buying this nonsense, I'm afraid to say.

What is the difference between learning a line, a refutation even, from a magazine or book, or using a computer to find it? Absolutely none, the end position is the same - a line or position has been found by someone/something far stronger than yourself.

If your position was that you were against all books, magazine articles, computers etc, then I would respect your position and probably partly agree with it. However, your actual position is completely arbitrary, and seems solely based on the computer's ability to smash up your opening lines.

If a strong GM published a book of human-found refutations to your lines, and a few thousand people went away, bought that book, and learnt the lines parrot-fashion, what is the difference? In fact, I think this would be even worse under your standards, since they are really rote-learning rather than doing any thinking at all. Stronger players use the computer to *assist* them, and are still capable of separating the wheat from the chaff, or ignoring the computer when it goes down an erroneous train of thought.

The whole argument about computer assistance replacing human thought is completely false and, to be blunt, quite fatuous. The computer is simply replacing the role of GMs in finding the strongest lines, and making these more accessible to players. The net result is no different to an amateur having access to ECO. In the game itself, they are on their own once they are "out of book", and still need to think for themselves. The only difference at all is the source from which they have acquired their opening knowledge. There is nothing controversial here, there is nothing against the spirit of the game, any more than a player using databases or books or magazines to prepare for their opponents. And since you, yourself, are publishing analyses of openings in a magazine, you are clearly not against this.

Using a computer to play your game for you is of course cheating, and is outlawed (rightly) in chess. Using opening books, magazines, databases etc to prepare openings is completely fine, and has been done since Ruy Lopez, Greco, Philidor etc started writing books centuries ago. The only thing that is different here is the medium of acquiring knowledge.

Quote:
In sum, if you depend on computer assistance, will you be able to do well without it in an OTB tournament?

If you depend on book and magazine assistance, will you be able to do well without them in an OTB tournament? What is the difference? I use the computer to help me look at openings, nothing more. I haven't previously relied on taking books into games with me, so I don't rely on the computer any more than on the knowledge of book or magazines. Fatuous argument.

In simplistic terms, the ONLY reason you are against people using computers for preparation is this. You play openings which are not examined in books in general. Your opening lines are unsound with best play. The computer is an alternative avenue of learning opening lines which refute your dubious play. As noted above, if a book of refutations of your opening lines, found and published by a GM, was available, what would be the difference? Still relying on someone else's skill/ingenuity/knowledge in order to learn your lines.

The scope for human brilliance and artistry is not removed. Shirov plays 25 moves of Ruy Lopez theory which has been known for countless years... he can still launch a brilliant attack a few moves later. Topalov actually goes one step further and uses GMs and computers alike to find brilliancies like his Nxf7 in the Slav against Kramnik. Is this cheating? He still had to play the resulting position, the millions of possible combinations of moves just three or four moves later made preparation of the whole game impossible. So, imagination or cheating?

Quote:
In a similar vein, if you depend on cheating to help pass a difficult trigonometry exam, will you pass it without cheating?


Do you consider revising for an exam cheating? Looking at examples and past paper questions beforehand - is this wrong? If so, there's one hell of a lot of cheating going on in schools all over the world. In fact, at age 3 we might as well just chuck a calculus exam in front of the child, since under your logic the whole concept of acquiring prior knowledge becomes cheating.

How dare we use electricity, we didn't discover it. How dare we use cars to get around, without knowledge of internal combustion, catalytic converters etc. How dare we watch TV without knowledge of plasma or cathode ray tubes. And those football, rugby, hockey teams etc who learn set play routines in training to shock or deceive their opponents in a game... HOW DARE THEY!!! CHEATS!!!

This entire argument is flawed, logically or otherwise. It is detritus. It is poppycock of the poppiest nature. Stop whining, get on with life, please.

I apologise if this sounds harsh, I don't wish it to be perceived as insulting in any way. But it is intended to be a mockery, because this anti-computer argument is just that, a mockery. It is arbitrary, it is selective and discriminatory, and it is a logical nonsense. The similes above might seem fatuous but, if you take time to consider each one, they are logical equivalents of the anti-computer position. Computer-learnt lines are no better or worse than book-learnt lines, and equally if a 1400 learns 20 lines of theory (from a book OR a computer), a stronger opponent is still likely to outplay them once their book knowledge ends. There is no cheating, there is no difference.

This is why I respect deeply players like Stefan, like Hector etc. They play dubious lines at times, but they also use computers, they are willing to accept criticism and suggestions in their lines, they are willing to search for the truth in their positions. To me it seems you simply wish to catch out people with trappy lines, and in essence, the hours of preparation you spend preparing these and deeply analysing many lines is just as much "cheating" as people who prepare responses for your lines. Pot, Kettle, Lev.

I'm sure you'll disagree, I'm sure you'll come up with some response (quite possibly an eloquent one, maybe even one that will hopefully make me stop and reconsider some of my points). But I also fear you will see this as a personal attack and respond by lashing out, as you have done towards people before. It is not intended as such, it is a respectful (though blunt at times) response to your position on computers, and I hope you do me the courtesy of considering my points rather than just responding with a dismissive "you are wrong, I will beat you, computers are cheating" response like you have previously.
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #4 - 06/18/09 at 16:37:59
Post Tools
Thank you, Mr. Hand. I have been saying this all the time. As for zeal, why, the pro-computer camp is expressing similar zeal in peddling computer-generated lines of refutations, as you put it. I simply match their zeal in expressing my opinion. Someone has got to stand up for
stand up for the anti-computer camp. If no one else is willing to do it, is has to be me.

Pretty much a lot of taunting going on around both ways, as using computer assistance is a controversial topic. In sum, if you depend on computer assistance, will you be able to do well without it in an OTB tournament?

In a similar vein, if you depend on cheating to help pass a difficult trigonometry exam, will you pass it without cheating?

That is how I view computers. People would not be able to find these lines if the electronic bunch of circuits did not tell them. Many brilliancies of the past were found by human brains, not computers!
Morphy - Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard, 1858; Anderssen-Kieseritzky, 1851 just to name a few.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
The Hand
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 55
Joined: 01/02/09
Re: BDG: Zilbermints Gambit in Euwe Defense
Reply #3 - 06/18/09 at 06:46:19
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/18/09 at 05:10:18:
As for computers, well... you can't use a computer to help you play in an OTB tournament! There is a reason why Chess Life ads say "no smoking, no computers"!

Again, you might use computers in correspondence chess, where time controls are longer. But over-the-board tournaments, with anywhere from Game/5 minutes to 50 moves / 2 hours, SD/1 hour,  is a different story.

And I play in over-the-board tournaments, where the use of computers is not allowed.  Grin


Sir, more and more I come to agree with your position about computers in chess and the people that peddle lines of refutation that come from them.  I have found that for the above average player and less, that these CC lines and refutations of these dubious systems such as BGD have little relevance to otb play.  I respect your pragmatic approach to chess but not so much your over zeal and taunting.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: BDG: Zilbermints Gambit in Euwe Defense
Reply #2 - 06/18/09 at 05:43:38
Post Tools
So I guess you work on your article in a "no smoking" area?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: BDG: Zilbermints Gambit in Euwe Defense
Reply #1 - 06/18/09 at 05:10:18
Post Tools
You can't use a computer to help you play in an OTB tournament! There is a reason why Chess Life ads say "no smoking, no computers"!

Again, you might use computers in correspondence chess, where time controls are longer. But over-the-board tournaments, with anywhere from Game/5 minutes to 50 moves / 2 hours, SD/1 hour,  is a different story.

And I play in over-the-board tournaments, where the use of computers is not allowed.  Grin
« Last Edit: 06/21/09 at 16:32:32 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo