Gambit wrote on 07/16/09 at 21:51:41:



I disagree strongly with the thought that computers make the best moves without making mistakes.  I know that the best correspondence players are better than the computers, even now.  I also know that if a person blindly follows the computer's recommendation, s/he will get squashed flat by players who think for themselves.

Gambit, you missed the main two points of the most recent messages:

1) Using a computer program to aid you while you are playing the game is cheating.
(Exception: when both players agree in advance.  Then it's called "advanced chess"; a different game.)

2.) Using a computer to discover the truth about an opening's worth and then to use that knowledge in a game is not only fully acceptable, but commendable.
There should be no reason to handicap ourselves in the name of a type of chivalry that never existed.

You have argued past those two central points, bringing up all sorts of irrelevant details such as the first amendment, the intestinal fortitude of players, and how manly an opening is.

Take a close look at those two points.  You seem to agree with the first point, but you have not acknowledged the contributions of others.

You seem to disagree with the second point, but you have not made a coherent argument against it except to claim cowardice.  You will need to define in what way it is cowardly for a human to analyse a variation.  

If I read the variation in a book that was printed since 2000, then I am virtually guaranteed to be analysing a computer-enhanced variation.  As long as the human takes responsibility for his or her moves over the board, then there is no cowardice.  One of the greatest selling points of chess is that it teaches individual responsibility.

(The next bit is not on the topic of cowardice in chess, but some thoughts on the relationship of chess and computers.)

Chess is not dead.  Chess is being played brilliantly all over the world.  The level of chess is higher now than ever before, and it is in large part due to the explosion of computer programs.  

This is still the Golden Age of chess, but "apres moi, le deluge".  I believe that chess will die out as more computer games become popular.  I have friends who have already given up competitive chess to play World of Warcraft or other online games.

NB: While I was scribbling my response, at least two others also made the same point.  Forgive me my slowness, I was transcribing from the clay tablet and stylus.   

I think it is the opposite. When using the computer you must do a lot of thinking to comprehend and understand  the different variations. Quite often it is not the best moce the computer suggest, especially not in the opening.
When you read the book, you will get all the variations and the explanations as well. Please keep in mind that no book today has been published before checked with the computer.

I don't think that is the issue Gambit. I would think that everyone would agree to that is is cheating using a computer during playing a game.
That is quite different to using a computer to assist you when analysing and preparing for a game. I don't undersand the difference between using a book (a computer has most certainly been used in writing the book) or a computer.

Firstly I dont 100% agree with the approach of Markovich, but I do think it is a sensible one. As long as the talk remains civilised and on the subjects of the board at hand there isnt any problem.

Secondly about the "cowardly" use of computers: I find that whole argument not only annoying and irritating (as I must have read the same argument with more or less namecalling at least 100 times), but also a little detached from reality of sports. 
In every sport or game competitors have tried their utmost to have the best chance at winning. I think there are two ways that people have used so far: To come better prepared and/or to have an advantage at the match itself. 
The latter is indeed one that is often called unsportmanly or even cowardly. You could think of using doping, use of certain rackets at tennis or use bathroom technology during a chessgame. Even with the latter it is very often not even cheating, but using the available space in the rules (with chess think about the Tal-stare or the Fischer-way of being on time) and that has been as old as Methusalem. The Spartans didnt compete at the wrestling as certain moves werent allowed anymore, knights at tournaments did their utmost to get the best equipment and horses. Heck even at the most honourable duels people tried their best to get an advantage (ie by using better guns). This part is a little digression as I think no one condones using a computer during a tournament game.
However coming back to the first way of trying to get an advantage. Calling that cowardice is just plain daft. As a sportsman you will try your utmost to come as best prepared as you can to a game or match. In the old days that involved sparring against training partners, exercising and so on. So it still is. Is it cowardly for athletes to take altitude stages? Is it cowardly to use dietists for an optimal diet? Is it cowardly to use a windtunnel to get a more aerodynamic way of running/cycling? Is it cowardly to use computers to prepare your chessgames? I dont think so. I think by not using those tools, you may be able to become as good as the sportsmen of the 1900s, but not more. Very heroic maybe, but not very interesting to anyone. And even you Lev use computers for your chess, this forum being a prime example, so it is a bit annoying to see you calling other people cowards just because they make better use of their tools for preparation.

Thirdly and my most important point. Personally I dont really mind being called a yellow coward, a nitwit or whatever abuse one can think of or alternatively getting inappropriate remarks on my way of life. However I think that there are people who do and that there are other ways of expressing that opinion (note to all: whatever you write is only final when you press the "post" button). Furthermore I know that there are people out there (and they might be on this forum) who under no circumstances deserve such qualifications.

DD-OK wrote on 07/16/09 at 06:14:01:


I deny that I try to "goad" anyone with talk about the First Amendment. Rather, being an American, I believe in a person's right to free speech. Having grown up in the United States, my views about free speech are influenced by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

People have the right to express themselves freely, without fear of being censured just because their opinions are not liked. The exception here is yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater or threats. I hope that is clear enough?

Now, as Antillian  said here,

"Too many are willing to call too swiftly for deleting threads, banning of posters, censorship and the like. I really hope that this forum does not become an oversanitised edifice where anyone that dares to be silly, irreverent  or even  insolent  is castigated."

I happen to agree with that assessment.

Finally, I would appreciate it if you stop making false assumptions about what I am trying to say. Do not ascribe views to me which I do not hold or support (e.g. goading).

   

Was thinking about this and I wanted to say hats off to the moderator in his approach to this.

Also, I think it is just to acknowledge that Gambit has contributed much more chess content than, say me, to this forum.   

I admit I get tired of the other stuff and went harsh, sorry.  I especially find talk of 1st amendment rights on an international forum distasteful, even more so because I think he is doing that intentionally as a way to further goad.

TonyRo wrote on 07/15/09 at 17:49:55:


More than a year ago I challenged LDZ to play four games - two on his terms, with short time control, and two on mine, with ICCF time control. He refused. Actually he did not refuse, he ignored my challenge. Someone else - alas I have forgotten who - tried to accept LDZ's challenge on his terms. Typically the games never did take place. So now we know who really is the coward.

(LDZ's answer to this reproach in earlier days: I embody courage! My name is Lev! That's Russian for lion! So I am the lion of the chessboard! I play the Zilbermints Gambits!)

Since long I have come to the assumption that LDZ needs to convince himself, over and over again, not us. Like Antillian I thought it great fun for quite a long time, but in my eyes he has become a bore. So a couple of times I have requested more moves and less talk, but alas it hasn't helped much (yet?)

Still he has some hilarious moments. Many times he has condemned 4...c6 and 5...c6 against the BDG in his typical way. There has been lengthy debates on this critical defence, usually concluding =+. When I asked LDZ to show us how to meet this as White I got two answers:

1) (the best) not necessary, others have done that already. See Bücker amongst others.
2) I'll summarize and post the main lines on 6.a3(!).

Answer 1) neglects the conclusion =+; answer 2) is an unfullfilled promise.
As I wrote before, my biggest problem with LDZ last few years is his lack of originality. The way he traced his reincarnations back to Atlantis some 20 000 years ago was great though. 

Antillian wrote on 07/15/09 at 17:41:13:


I agree.  But I do think that threads in sections devoted to chess theory should remain relatively focused on chess theory.