Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Computers, Analysis and Theory (Read 21117 times)
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1333
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #45 - 06/24/09 at 00:36:05
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 06/23/09 at 20:38:59:
Using a computer is never an excuse to switch your brains off. I teach that my pupils as soon as they use a calculator.
LDZ's wrong assumption is the we do.



No I think LDZ's point is he's crying at how easily the computer refutes his garbage openings.

CraigEvans wrote on 06/23/09 at 22:23:02:
Regardless of "laziness" - and the same accusation can easily be made of those who follow lines in books only to find themselves confronted by an improvement OTB - the simple point I'm making is that use of a computer to prepare is not cheating. And I think the lack of debate on that point is proof enough.



yea that point was never up for debate Wink

I was more or less hinting at the following point that you summarized better:
CraigEvans wrote on 06/23/09 at 15:39:16:
2) Hence I actually think that (similar to Smyslov's comments) rote learning is far more likely with books. As he says, the computer is used by any good player as a "partner", and moreover, a partner who you need to guide. As you rightly say, the computer's evaluations only make sense to himself and are based on concrete variations under specific pre-defined parameters, which are often misled by the horizon effect, material considerations, simple positional factors such as passed pawns etc. In other words, any good player worth his salt can completely look past =+'s given by the computer - if you play some lines of the French or Caro-Kann or Alekhine through a computer it will often give white a nonsensically large advantage because it understands nothing. A human who prepares his openings based solely on this number will actually be disadvantaging themselves compared to just trying to work things out OTB.

  
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: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #44 - 06/23/09 at 22:23:02
Post Tools
Regardless of "laziness" - and the same accusation can easily be made of those who follow lines in books only to find themselves confronted by an improvement OTB - the simple point I'm making is that use of a computer to prepare is not cheating. And I think the lack of debate on that point is proof enough.
  

"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
 
Göran
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChessPublishing is great!

Posts: 451
Location: Sweden
Joined: 02/13/08
Gender: Male
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #43 - 06/23/09 at 20:52:24
Post Tools
I think this is a strange discussion.
Use whatever is working for you. Some will learn better by a book but other will find it better to use a computer to test different ideas.

Personally I think a combination of books, use of computer and my own analysis is the best way of learning and not to forget the practice -with human and the computer, whatever is available.
  

What kind of proof is that?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #42 - 06/23/09 at 20:38:59
Post Tools
Using a computer is never an excuse to switch your brains off. I teach that my pupils as soon as they use a calculator.
LDZ's wrong assumption is the we do.
  

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
 
TicklyTim
Senior Member
****
Offline


can I take that back,
please...

Posts: 274
Location: England
Joined: 05/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #41 - 06/23/09 at 15:54:15
Post Tools
Just wanted to remind people of the Kramnik debacle when following rote lines from a computer against Leko.
The computer was wrong in it's assessment, but the human element had been lazy.
  
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 #40 - 06/23/09 at 15:39:16
Post Tools
trw wrote on 06/21/09 at 21:32:39:
CraigEvans wrote on 06/18/09 at 21:15:03:
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.



I'd actually like to seriously discuss LSA's point because it is a good one.

I agree with it and don't think I can refute it but for the purpose of fun... i'll play devil's advocate.

I would point out the main difference for me between a GM book and a computer line for the 20 moves is as follows:
1) The gm's moves usually have a sense of a concrete plan... you can see the pawn structure, space, piece play, endgame even taking shape. To boot, on top of the moves there is usually explanations and sidelines that help prove the point of endorsed plan. And in the end... the evaluation is as much your own opinion of the resulting position as it would be the GM's notated "=" or "+=" etc. What i'm trying to say is I don't believe it is possible to simple read a book by a GM and have only retained rote memorization. Either you will be able to understand the opening and the ideas behind it... or frankly you won't have the skill to memorize.
2) I see more rote memorization from databases/computers which leads to the next point. It is very difficult to follow computer analysis with understanding as often times the computers will endorse dumb plans that only make sense if you can see 15 moves ahead in all lines. Sometimes the computers themselves can't see this due to the horizon. I would further point out that your own creativity is stifled by computers as it is next to impossible to ignore = "+=" when it comes with a number in the very line you're analyzing. To this effect, once you start analyzing a position with a computer it is hard to stop!


As per the argument itself. Obviously no form of preparation for your game can be considered either cowardly or cheating only effective and non effective.


An interesting attempt at fighting LDZ's battle for him, Wizard, and one that made me stop and think for a little while. Here are my comments:

1) I am one of a number of players I know who have never ever sat down and read a chess book properly. By that, I have almost never sat down and played through the lines on a boar,d I've never taken it away and looked in databases for typical positions, I've never really even read over much of the text other than the moves themselves. A lot of my old dragon theory (some of which I still weirdly remember) I gleaned from a particularly long and boring train journey when I was 18, accompanied only by The Complete Dragon and my MP3 player. Did I have a real understanding of what I was doing in the opening... perhaps, perhaps not, that would have to have come from my understanding of chess in general. Did I know 20+ moves of theory in some lines? You bet.

2) Hence I actually think that (similar to Smyslov's comments) rote learning is far more likely with books. As he says, the computer is used by any good player as a "partner", and moreover, a partner who you need to guide. As you rightly say, the computer's evaluations only make sense to himself and are based on concrete variations under specific pre-defined parameters, which are often misled by the horizon effect, material considerations, simple positional factors such as passed pawns etc. In other words, any good player worth his salt can completely look past =+'s given by the computer - if you play some lines of the French or Caro-Kann or Alekhine through a computer it will often give white a nonsensically large advantage because it understands nothing. A human who prepares his openings based solely on this number will actually be disadvantaging themselves compared to just trying to work things out OTB.

Either way, I suppose the main point is that even if the GM has an idea of a concrete plan as well as the moves - if someone else is giving you that sort of help to learn moves then under LDZ's definition, that would be cheating. In fact, one could argue that books and magazines are even more a "cheat" in this sense, exactly because of the additional guidance, tips, plans and comments they give. The computer takes whatever moves you give it, and outputs a number at the end - it is up to the human to interpret this however.

An interesting case in point (very brief digression) is in the very detailed analysis done by Markovich, LG, Kam (and myself in places) of some Alekhine lines. Sometimes even as far as 25-30 moves eep the computer is giving white a huge "+/-" and then suddenly realises his mistake. A computer alone could never find some of the lines which we have found on those threads which actually make black look quite reasonable in, for example, the Voronezh variation. Realistically, a human alone would probably also struggle. But to say that using a computer to help you prepare for games is cheating... well, I think we're all agreed it's a pretty weak position to take. Computers, books, magazines, GM seconds/thirds/fourths (if you're Kasparov et al) - it's all the same. It's absolutely no different to revising for an exam, getting a tutor to help you in areas you are struggling with - it is help for the pre-test preparation. As long as you don't have the answer book then it isn't cheating. Since you're on your own as soon as you're inside the tournament hall, it isn't cheating. It's just replacing paper with bytes, and GMs with a calculator.

As for the freedom of speech issue... well, we've been over this a thousand times. Think Markovich, Smyslov et al have covered that one nicely.

I think you'll have confused some people by calling me LSA, however, Wiz.  That alone is justification enough to do it... Wink
  

"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
 
TimS
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 458
Location: London
Joined: 11/02/05
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #39 - 06/23/09 at 10:15:09
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 06/22/09 at 12:33:26:
MNb wrote on 06/21/09 at 21:27:40:
Anyhow he has not thought yet about the argument why freedom of speech does not apply. Would it help to repeat it for the zillionth time?


Right.  Freedom of speech does not apply in this venue because this is a private forum, and Tony may choose to regulate what can and cannot be posted here, a task that he has delegated to appointed monitors.

Futher it is simply idiotic to think that because you can't say whatever you like, however you like, in this one little forum your speech is significantly restricted.  You can go out on any street corner in New Jersey or Ohio or whereever and shout your opinions to all passers-by; you can have them printed up and hand them out in front of libraries or deliver them to peoples doorsteps.  

But as you point out, Lev has never taken note of this argument, so it is perhaps futile to repeat it.

@TimS:  London, Ohio or London, Kentucky?

London, Middlesex
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #38 - 06/22/09 at 22:05:24
Post Tools
I disagree with the premise that memorising something I analysed with the aid of a computer is different in any way from any other line I memorise.  

I use the computer as an aid, and not a crutch.  I force the computer to analyse positions it would not normally analyse.  I ask it questions and challenge my own thinking.  In this way, the resulting lines are created by a symbiotic relationship between my computer and myself.

When I quote a line that Fritz gives, I usually do so for one of two reasons: a) to give credit to the computer for discovering a tactic that I overlooked or b) to show where I disagree with the computer.  

It is interesting that someone who is so careful about his own freedoms wishes to curtail the freedom of others to do research as they see fit.  

Alexei Shirov, one of the most fearless GMs around, openly discusses how he uses computers to help him in Fire on Board I and II.

Of course, he isn't the only one, with just about every modern author using computer analysis to supplement their own thinking.

The argument that players simply memorise computer lines is wrong in its inception because the players must put those lines into the computer to begin with.  The process is not purely mechanical, and even if it were the otb player would soon be  out of what he has memorised and thinking anyway.

As Tartakower once said, between the opening and endgame the gods have placed the middlegame.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #37 - 06/22/09 at 12:33:26
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 06/21/09 at 21:27:40:
Anyhow he has not thought yet about the argument why freedom of speech does not apply. Would it help to repeat it for the zillionth time?


Right.  Freedom of speech does not apply in this venue because this is a private forum, and Tony may choose to regulate what can and cannot be posted here, a task that he has delegated to appointed monitors.

Futher it is simply idiotic to think that because you can't say whatever you like, however you like, in this one little forum your speech is significantly restricted.  You can go out on any street corner in New Jersey or Ohio or whereever and shout your opinions to all passers-by; you can have them printed up and hand them out in front of libraries or deliver them to peoples doorsteps.  

But as you point out, Lev has never taken note of this argument, so it is perhaps futile to repeat it.

@TimS:  London, Ohio or London, Kentucky?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TimS
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 458
Location: London
Joined: 11/02/05
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #36 - 06/22/09 at 12:13:23
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/20/09 at 16:30:39:
Excuse me, but I do have a FIDE rating of 2027. I think that is the equivalent of 2127 USCF, since FIDE ratings are at least 100 points higher.

Under what name?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1333
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #35 - 06/21/09 at 21:32:39
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 06/18/09 at 21:15:03:
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.



I'd actually like to seriously discuss LSA's point because it is a good one.

I agree with it and don't think I can refute it but for the purpose of fun... i'll play devil's advocate.

I would point out the main difference for me between a GM book and a computer line for the 20 moves is as follows:
1) The gm's moves usually have a sense of a concrete plan... you can see the pawn structure, space, piece play, endgame even taking shape. To boot, on top of the moves there is usually explanations and sidelines that help prove the point of endorsed plan. And in the end... the evaluation is as much your own opinion of the resulting position as it would be the GM's notated "=" or "+=" etc. What i'm trying to say is I don't believe it is possible to simple read a book by a GM and have only retained rote memorization. Either you will be able to understand the opening and the ideas behind it... or frankly you won't have the skill to memorize.
2) I see more rote memorization from databases/computers which leads to the next point. It is very difficult to follow computer analysis with understanding as often times the computers will endorse dumb plans that only make sense if you can see 15 moves ahead in all lines. Sometimes the computers themselves can't see this due to the horizon. I would further point out that your own creativity is stifled by computers as it is next to impossible to ignore = "+=" when it comes with a number in the very line you're analyzing. To this effect, once you start analyzing a position with a computer it is hard to stop!


As per the argument itself. Obviously no form of preparation for your game can be considered either cowardly or cheating only effective and non effective.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #34 - 06/21/09 at 21:27:40
Post Tools
Anyhow he has not thought yet about the argument why freedom of speech does not apply. Would it help to repeat it for the zillionth time?
  

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
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #33 - 06/21/09 at 21:23:51
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/21/09 at 18:14:54:
And provoking means making people think.

Somehow I doubt you feel provoked...
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #32 - 06/21/09 at 19:27:46
Post Tools
Actually,

I hope this is readable in Iran.

But as for voting, since you are clearly American, please review the US Constitition and Constitutional law regarding the protection of individual rights, property rights and the First Amendment. 

Then, you may want to look at international law, since this is clearly an international website (apparently based in France).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1387
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Computers, Analysis and Theory
Reply #31 - 06/21/09 at 18:14:54
Post Tools
And provoking means making people think. What do you  think this is, Iran, where freedom of speech is censured?

Where is my vote?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #30 - 06/21/09 at 15:32:31
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/20/09 at 00:12:57:
I don't know exactly why there is so much anger in these threads lately, and I have even less idea of how to stop it.

Lev, if you wish to discuss one of your opening variations, you know where the appropriate forums are.

If you wish to attack each other, I don't know that others need to participate.  So, why don't you create a thread that is clearly labelled, and see who really wants to discuss what you wish to discuss?



I kicked this thread over here precisely because it was not about theory.  If anyone wants to discuss the theory of any of Lev's 1.d4 systems, feel free to come over and do it.  But I will delete straightaway anything that veers onto the supposed cowardice of given ways of playing chess, or studying it.  That subject should be verboten on any theory board, and it certainly is on the ones that I moderate.

I suggest that you rule Lev here with an iron rod, because it appears to me that the entire purpose of many of his remarks is to provoke.

P.S. Actually I think those remarks by Pandolfini quoted above were both stupid and rude.
  

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



Posts: 2147
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #29 - 06/21/09 at 13:17:43
Post Tools
Cor blimey guvnor.

Board games sought with murderous despots.

As part of this, I would like to play Kerplunk against Ivan the Terrible.

Any other readers have favoured games in which they fancy their chances against infamous historical types?

Write to: letterbocks, Viz, Newcastle.

  
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 #28 - 06/21/09 at 12:20:19
Post Tools
Quote:
8:  Chicken Line, 9...c6


Also known as "Refutation, 9...c6."

Lev calls people cowards if they spurn the "chance" to play him in "OTB" (he should really try expanding that out to see what it means). I call people cowards if they deliberately seek arguments and then spurn the "chance" to respond to all the points which make their argument so flawed. It's also amusing that his neutral third-person opinion comes from a personal friend of his and whom no-one else here could verify the story of. Instead of listening to upwards of ten people on here all giving the same opinion despite having no reason to agree with each other.

Some people will only hear what they want to hear and do what they want to do, and will disregard the thoughts, opinions and feelings of others.  In that respect it's almost a Hitleresque determination that Lev posesses.

Luckily he doesn't share some of Hitler's other prejudices... well, not that we yet know of, anyway. But I still think I'd rather play an OTB game against the Austrian chap.

Before you launch into another "you are weak, I'll beat you" argument, Lev... bear in mind that my FIDE is also higher than yours. Your chess really is as weak as your debate/argumental skills.

Ahh, much better. Sorry Smyslov, I do wonder at times why he causes anger too, but he's very good at it! Consider me out.
  

"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: 10475
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #27 - 06/20/09 at 20:59:42
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/20/09 at 00:12:57:
I don't know exactly why there is so much anger in these threads lately, and I have even less idea of how to stop it.


Close the thread if it becomes hopeless.
Censor the rude posts.

I would certainly welcome censorship on any post that contains the word "coward". The reason is not that it's offensive, the reason is that Gambit now must have explained his opinion on computers about 200 times. This thread therefor is superfluous.

As long as language is civilized there is nothing wrong with anger. So you might keep it open for a while yet as well.
  

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
 
derdudea
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 174
Location: Germany
Joined: 10/03/08
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #26 - 06/20/09 at 17:38:21
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 06/20/09 at 11:00:08:
You conflate the two. Clearly not so.
Regarding OTB seems you have no FIDE rating, as you never actually play OTB. Amusingly enough. Just internet ranting and random blitz chess that you claim to play.

Have members here any reason to believe that you are not just a random teen duffer with poor manners?



After checking the Fide- rating,  members have reason to believe that age does not prevent from behaving like this.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1387
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #25 - 06/20/09 at 16:30:39
Post Tools
Excuse me, but I do have a FIDE rating of 2027. I think that is the equivalent of 2127 USCF, since FIDE ratings are at least 100 points higher.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2147
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #24 - 06/20/09 at 11:00:08
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/20/09 at 06:12:15:
Just yesterday, I decided to get a neutral third-party opinion. So what I did was the following.

I talked to the editor of New Jersey's chess magazine yesterday. He agreed with me in that it is not good to trust computers blindly. Secondly, he agreed that during the game you can't use a computer for help. Third, he basically agreed with me that those who just throw out computer-generated "refutations" while avoiding accepting a honest OTB match are cowards.

This is the same cowardly behavior that Howard Staunton showed Paul Morphy in 1858, when Morphy came to England. Only difference was there were no computers at the time. One thing that remained constant was avoiding of a honest, man-to-man match.

I see that has not changed, even though 150+ years have passed.

Now, in response to Mr. TonyRo, I have to say the following. Of course he is not going to accept my challenge, for it is much more easier to criticize than to face the line over the board. Can't take the chance that he will fail to remember the so-called "refutation" !
And should I defeat him, what when? Oh, the ignominy! The so-called unsound gambit is suddenly sound!

But this is more a matter of chess psychology.

You ask why all of a sudden there is so much anger here? Fair question, and so I will give you a honest and fair answer.

I find it most annoying when people start citing computer analyses like the imam cites the Koran, the priest, the Bible, or the rabbi, the Torah and Talmud. You see, I don't worship the computer like a lot of people do here. Oh, chess engine so-and-so said this was bad, thereby it is unquestionable! Infallible, like the Pope in Rome!

Even more annoying is when I offer people the chance to play me on the Internet Chess Club a honest match. You can see for yourself, dear moderator, how many people chickened out. Of all who are here,
only two brave people accepted my challenge and played a honest match.

Give them the chess medal of honor for decency and bravery. Their names are Patrik Schoupal of Czech Republic and Pablo Schmidt of Germany.

Everyone else just plain invented this or that excuse not to accept an over-the-board match.
You know, what comes to mind is an expression from the military: Cabinet Generals. It means that such people don't know zip about the situation on the field of battle, but are good critics of military plans.
Same here, in a miniature fashion. Rather than go to the battlefield and fight, my critics would rather be cabinet generals.

I sincerely hope this answers your question, my dear moderator?

Thank you kindly.

Respectfully yours,

Gambit


You conflate the two. Clearly not so.
Regarding OTB seems you have no FIDE rating, as you never actually play OTB. Amusingly enough. Just internet ranting and random blitz chess that you claim to play.

Have members here any reason to believe that you are not just a random teen duffer with poor manners?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cyronix
Ex Member
*



Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #23 - 06/20/09 at 06:53:16
Post Tools
I think computer engines really do only improve the play of the professionals, because they analyze new, unknown variations on their computers ...

most other people, just play a repertoire based on books,
I mean I use engines to analyze my games afterwards,
but I never really sucessfully used an engine to investigate into "unknown" realms of opening theory (I mean chess is there for so long, if you look for noveltys you should start somewhere at move 17-20 in a variation, honestly most players can't remember so many moves, if it is not a mainline variation ...)

Engines are a tool for professionals, amateurs can only use engines for analyzing their own games ... and engines also lack in giving you a real plan or strategy ...

well maybe there are also correspondence players out there,
who could use computer engines ... and tbh. I don't think any player with ELO up to 2400 or maybe 2500 would stand a chance in a correspondence game against the machine ... so in a way these engines destroyed correspondence chess on amateur level ...

gambit, tbh. if you are an opening investigator,
you can't do without computers nowadays, at least if you are looking for the truth ... I mean if you are only equipped with books and your own findings on the bdg, I could just start up rybka, and still show you who is the boss in any variation in the BDG ... if your only aim is to win practical games against amateurs, it is still ok though ...

the BDG is not that bad, I think my rybka showed only 0.00 in the critical variations for black, so at least it doesn't lose,
I mean in many mainline variations rybka also only shows 0.00 ...
I guess that if Rybka would play the BDG against the top players Rybka would still win ...

Gambit wrote on 06/20/09 at 06:12:15:
I talked to the editor of New Jersey's chess magazine yesterday. He agreed with me in that it is not good to trust computers blindly. Secondly, he agreed that during the game you can't use a computer for help. Third, he basically agreed with me that those who just throw out computer-generated "refutations" while avoiding accepting a honest OTB match are cowards.

This is the same cowardly behavior that Howard Staunton showed Paul Morphy in 1858, when Morphy came to England. Only difference was there were no computers at the time. One thing that remained constant was avoiding of a honest, man-to-man match.

I see that has not changed, even though 150+ years have passed.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1387
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #22 - 06/20/09 at 06:12:15
Post Tools
Just yesterday, I decided to get a neutral third-party opinion. So what I did was the following.

I talked to the editor of New Jersey's chess magazine yesterday. He agreed with me in that it is not good to trust computers blindly. Secondly, he agreed that during the game you can't use a computer for help. Third, he basically agreed with me that those who just throw out computer-generated "refutations" while avoiding accepting a honest OTB match are cowards.

This is the same cowardly behavior that Howard Staunton showed Paul Morphy in 1858, when Morphy came to England. Only difference was there were no computers at the time. One thing that remained constant was avoiding of a honest, man-to-man match.

I see that has not changed, even though 150+ years have passed.

Now, in response to Mr. TonyRo, I have to say the following. Of course he is not going to accept my challenge, for it is much more easier to criticize than to face the line over the board. Can't take the chance that he will fail to remember the so-called "refutation" !
And should I defeat him, what when? Oh, the ignominy! The so-called unsound gambit is suddenly sound!

But this is more a matter of chess psychology.

You ask why all of a sudden there is so much anger here? Fair question, and so I will give you a honest and fair answer.

I find it most annoying when people start citing computer analyses like the imam cites the Koran, the priest, the Bible, or the rabbi, the Torah and Talmud. You see, I don't worship the computer like a lot of people do here. Oh, chess engine so-and-so said this was bad, thereby it is unquestionable! Infallible, like the Pope in Rome!

Even more annoying is when I offer people the chance to play me on the Internet Chess Club a honest match. You can see for yourself, dear moderator, how many people chickened out. Of all who are here,
only two brave people accepted my challenge and played a honest match.

Give them the chess medal of honor for decency and bravery. Their names are Patrik Schoupal of Czech Republic and Pablo Schmidt of Germany.

Everyone else just plain invented this or that excuse not to accept an over-the-board match.

You know, what comes to mind is an expression from the military: Cabinet Generals. It means that such people don't know zip about the situation on the field of battle, but are good critics of military plans.
Same here, in a miniature fashion. Rather than go to the battlefield and fight, my critics would rather be cabinet generals.

I sincerely hope this answers your question, my dear moderator?

Thank you kindly.

Respectfully yours,

Gambit
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #21 - 06/20/09 at 00:12:57
Post Tools
I don't know exactly why there is so much anger in these threads lately, and I have even less idea of how to stop it.

Lev, if you wish to discuss one of your opening variations, you know where the appropriate forums are.

If you wish to attack each other, I don't know that others need to participate.  So, why don't you create a thread that is clearly labelled, and see who really wants to discuss what you wish to discuss?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #20 - 06/19/09 at 20:51:48
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/19/09 at 19:58:33:
TonyRo wrote on 06/19/09 at 18:31:42:
Why does anyone dignify LDZ with a response? No matter what you say to a person like that, he's going to keep on saying whatever the hell he wants anyway, probably in a rude manner, such that he can garner as much attention as possible. If he refuses to use computers to help his chess and insists of promoting silly gambits that he named after himself, then let him hurt his chess like this. Every time he posts, you should just read this, chuckle to yourself, then go look around ChessPub for something that's worth reading. Relatively speaking, it's not too hard to find. Click anywhere. Even the ads.

Taken from Bruce Pandolfini's 8th Chess Cafe Column called "The Q&A Way":

"Question This is Lev D. Zilbermints, inventor of the Zilbermints
Gambit, writing. If you were White, what would you play after 1.
d4 e5  2. de5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nge7(!)? Please give some specific
analysis to support your viewpoint. Thanks. Keep in touch. (Lev
D. Zilbermints, USA)

Answer Sometimes you have to be there. I've never been there,
nor is it likely I'll ever experience the pleasure of being in this
position against you. Now that I know what you play I plan to steer
clear of 1.d4 in all our possible encounters."


It has a sort of begging puppy dog quality doesn't it? Even Bruce Pandolfini blows him off. Coward.  Grin



I read that on Internet awhile ago. The point was, I asked Bruce his opinion about what he would play against 3...Nge7. His response was that he never faced 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 in a chess tournament. That said, he planned to "play coward" as TonyRo puts it, by avoiding 1 d4 altogether. Of course! Because gambits are still possible after 1...e5!

Cowards want to avoid gambits at all costs. That is what you say, TonyRo.

And, Mr. TonyRo, this is a place of free opinion. How about you play me in a honest long-time control match, G/60, at the Internet Chess Club? You so intent on criticizing my inventions, how about you face them in a serious tournament game?

Put your money where your mouth is, as the American expression goes?

Ciao.


Apparently the fact that I was mocking you in saying that Pandolfini was a coward was lost on you or just ignored out of convenience. I am not disputing the fact that ChessPub is a place of free opinion. I'm just saying that responding to yours is a colossal waste of time and effort, as is playing you on ICC. I don't have two hours to waste playing against a gambit that I know sucks and that I'll literally never see in my entire life. I'm an e4 player.  Grin

This is the last post you'll hear from me...I stand by words that ignoring you is best policy. At least the posts that are contentless.
  
Back to top
 
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 #19 - 06/19/09 at 20:10:56
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/19/09 at 18:07:49:
See, you just proved a key point, that being you might "mess" up in the ZGED. It is not, as you say, often seen over the board.


Except that due to what I play it'd never occur in one of my games - ever.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1387
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #18 - 06/19/09 at 19:58:33
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/19/09 at 18:31:42:
Why does anyone dignify LDZ with a response? No matter what you say to a person like that, he's going to keep on saying whatever the hell he wants anyway, probably in a rude manner, such that he can garner as much attention as possible. If he refuses to use computers to help his chess and insists of promoting silly gambits that he named after himself, then let him hurt his chess like this. Every time he posts, you should just read this, chuckle to yourself, then go look around ChessPub for something that's worth reading. Relatively speaking, it's not too hard to find. Click anywhere. Even the ads.

Taken from Bruce Pandolfini's 8th Chess Cafe Column called "The Q&A Way":

"Question This is Lev D. Zilbermints, inventor of the Zilbermints
Gambit, writing. If you were White, what would you play after 1.
d4 e5  2. de5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nge7(!)? Please give some specific
analysis to support your viewpoint. Thanks. Keep in touch. (Lev
D. Zilbermints, USA)

Answer Sometimes you have to be there. I've never been there,
nor is it likely I'll ever experience the pleasure of being in this
position against you. Now that I know what you play I plan to steer
clear of 1.d4 in all our possible encounters."


It has a sort of begging puppy dog quality doesn't it? Even Bruce Pandolfini blows him off. Coward.  Grin



I read that on Internet awhile ago. The point was, I asked Bruce his opinion about what he would play against 3...Nge7. His response was that he never faced 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 in a chess tournament. That said, he planned to "play coward" as TonyRo puts it, by avoiding 1 d4 altogether. Of course! Because gambits are still possible after 1...e5!

Cowards want to avoid gambits at all costs. That is what you say, TonyRo.

And, Mr. TonyRo, this is a place of free opinion. How about you play me in a honest long-time control match, G/60, at the Internet Chess Club? You so intent on criticizing my inventions, how about you face them in a serious tournament game?

Put your money where your mouth is, as the American expression goes?

Ciao.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1765
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #17 - 06/19/09 at 18:31:42
Post Tools
Why does anyone dignify LDZ with a response? No matter what you say to a person like that, he's going to keep on saying whatever the hell he wants anyway, probably in a rude manner, such that he can garner as much attention as possible. If he refuses to use computers to help his chess and insists of promoting silly gambits that he named after himself, then let him hurt his chess like this. Every time he posts, you should just read this, chuckle to yourself, then go look around ChessPub for something that's worth reading. Relatively speaking, it's not too hard to find. Click anywhere. Even the ads.

Taken from Bruce Pandolfini's 8th Chess Cafe Column called "The Q&A Way":

"Question This is Lev D. Zilbermints, inventor of the Zilbermints
Gambit, writing. If you were White, what would you play after 1.
d4 e5  2. de5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nge7(!)? Please give some specific
analysis to support your viewpoint. Thanks. Keep in touch. (Lev
D. Zilbermints, USA)

Answer Sometimes you have to be there. I've never been there,
nor is it likely I'll ever experience the pleasure of being in this
position against you. Now that I know what you play I plan to steer
clear of 1.d4 in all our possible encounters."


It has a sort of begging puppy dog quality doesn't it? Even Bruce Pandolfini blows him off. Coward.  Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1387
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #16 - 06/19/09 at 18:07:49
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/18/09 at 23:42:42:
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.


See, you just proved a key point, that being you might "mess" up in the ZGED. It is not, as you say, often seen over the board.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1387
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: 10475
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: 1387
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: 1387
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: 1387
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: 1387
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: 1382
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: 1387
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
 
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
Computers, Analysis and Theory
06/17/09 at 15:45:55
Post Tools
Edited:
Moderator's note:  The initial posts were modified by one moderator then removed by me.  Gambit started the thread with an off-color joke and then discussed his upcoming article about chess. I have removed references to that joke but left the chess content unchanged.~SF



Lev, I look forward to your article, but by this quote:

Quote:
Also, I answer my critics in that newsletter...


...that you don't just intend to take swipes at those who have posted analyses disproving the validity of your sacrifice, in a forum where they have no clear right to reply. That would be very disappointing.

Also, I wonder what place your personal opinion of computer analysis really has in an article on a chess opening, but any further discussion on that can wait until the article is seen and the context of the discussion can be observed. Again, I just hope it is done tastefully rather than being a swipe at all those who dare to use a computer to double-check ideas.
« Last Edit: 06/21/09 at 16:39:51 by Smyslov_Fan »  

"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
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo