![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: chess, common, misconceptions, rgcm |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
People are encouraged to think of chess players as smart. On the contrary,
chess players are merely monomaniacal. Anyone who spends their life staring at a game when they could be getting laid isn't very smart in my book. Chess players claim that the game teaches strategy. It does not. It teaches memorization. No rational person would claim that memorizing pi out to a thousand places increases your grasp of strategy, but chess players will make that claim about a game which is nothing more than a memorization exercise. If there was some overarching 'strategy' that would lead to success in the game of chess, there would be no need for opening books. Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that chess originated somewhere in China. This is, of course, completely false. It was fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exotic origins to the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart, a rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed by Muslim scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners that were captured during the Crusades. The game only found its way to China later, carried by merchants along the silk road. If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like me to give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than the propaganda that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask. |
| Ads |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Dec 10, 7:49 pm, Mark wrote:
People are encouraged to think of chess players as smart. On the contrary, chess players are merely monomaniacal. Anyone who spends their life staring at a game when they could be getting laid isn't very smart in my book. Chess players claim that the game teaches strategy. It does not. It teaches memorization. No rational person would claim that memorizing pi out to a thousand places increases your grasp of strategy, but chess players will make that claim about a game which is nothing more than a memorization exercise. If there was some overarching 'strategy' that would lead to success in the game of chess, there would be no need for opening books. Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that chess originated somewhere in China. This is, of course, completely false. It was fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exotic origins to the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart, a rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed by Muslim scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners that were captured during the Crusades. The game only found its way to China later, carried by merchants along the silk road. If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like me to give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than the propaganda that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask. Q: Why is it that Sanny's GetClub program has "suddenly" gapped up in strength? --- There is a problem with rote-memorization of opening moves, but chess does teach you that your every "move" can have dire consequences. Playing computers teaches us humility, and in fact the occasional rescue of dead lost positions by these same opponents refutes the nonsense above about "memorizing pi" and a mere "memorization exercise". Also note that you have crafted a classic fallacy with your either/or dilemma: play chess, or get laid; obviously, one can play chess -- even mono-maniacally -- and "get laid", just not both (skillfully) at precisely the same time (admittedly, I am guessing here). That sort of thinking is typical of people who can't think logically; if only you and other thinking-impaired folks had been taught chess at an early age, it's possible that such thinking problems could have been eradicated. Anyway, I think it was good to throw in the bit about Muslims, but you might have added some politics to go with your religion "troll" stew. Not to mention that attacks on Bobby Fischer trump even those ideas, here in these newsgroups; the "American idol" has claimed that Gary Kasparov is akin to an idiot savant, but we all know who the real idiot (and savant) was. Look, people don't seem to have strong feelings/emotions) about where chess may have originated, so you're barking up a wrong tree; "trolls" are supposed to engender a powerful emotional response, so you have to aim low. Also note how attacking chess historians is not exactly going to arouse the masses; we chess players don't care about them; they are boring, low-rated pedants who can't get laid. Try attacking people we chess players respect and admire, like say, Humphrey Bogart or Errol Flynn. Not to suggest that I am any expert on the art of trolling, but these errors just "leaped out" at me, like a Greco sac' (1. Bxh7+ Kxh7, 2. Ng5+ Kg8, 3. Qh5 Re8, 4. Qxf7+ Kh8, 5. Qh5+ Kf8, 6. Qh8+ Ke7, 7. Qxg7+, etc.). -- help bot |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Fact: Only a small portion (and sometimes practically none at all) of a typical game of chess is based on memorization. An average game lasts about forty moves or so, and the average tournament player might know an opening ten-moves-deep at the most if his opponent is oblidging enough to play into it. Sometimes even Grandmasters are "out of book" by move six! You seem to have several misconceptions about chess, yourself! |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Q: Why is it that Sanny's GetClub program has "suddenly"
gapped up in strength? 2 Bugs were Removed. That made the game play much stronger that you lost 4 games out of 18 played in last 2 days. I suppose try playing with Easy & Normal Level. Yes think a lot before each move and beat them. Zebediah beat Master Level in just 24 moves yesterday by trapping its Queen. Lets see if you can still beat Normal/ Master Level now? Can you Accept the Challenge with Normal/ Master Level? Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html They give lot of points. and only way to beat Zebediah scores. Last 5 months Zebediah has been playing only with Master Level and always winning the Game. Looks like he uses some smart computer or he is highly rated player. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Dec 11, 11:31 am, Sanny wrote:
Q: Why is it that Sanny's GetClub program has "suddenly" gapped up in strength? 2 Bugs were Removed. That made the game play much stronger that you lost 4 games out of 18 played in last 2 days. I suppose try playing with Easy & Normal Level. Yes think a lot before each move and beat them. Zebediah beat Master Level in just 24 moves yesterday by trapping its Queen. Lets see if you can still beat Normal/ Master Level now? Can you Accept the Challenge with Normal/ Master Level? Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html They give lot of points. and only way to beat Zebediah scores. Last 5 months Zebediah has been playing only with Master Level and always winning the Game. Looks like he uses some smart computer or he is highly rated player. He's probably using a computer, so there is no fear of a 150-move struggle which lasts a month -- even against your Master level. I suspect that Fritz 5.32 could beat up on your program very easily, and he could be using one of the more recent programs which are rated over 2800. Note that when I go over the published games between grandmasters, *many* mistakes are uncovered, even by my old Fritz 5.32. I haven't studied Zeb's games, but I played over a couple where odd-looking moves sprang from out of nowhere; the same type of moves which are the very hallmark of computers. Let's say that I play a week-long battle versus your Master level, only to lose or draw; I get zero points, and a week has been wasted! Now, if I mess up against the Beginner or Easy level, it's no big deal because I have time to try again. The only downside is that I don't really have time to switch back and forth to other "tabs", because I seem to get nowhere that way, and it hurts my play. In some of the recent games where I beat the Beginner level, I was dead lost but the program seemed unable to make headway. One issue is that the program can't figure out where the action is, and it keeps its King in the wrong sector; this allows me to hold a position where I ought to have been simply "outnumbered". For instance, if the pawns are all on one side of the board in an endgame, the King should not just "hang out" on the opposite wing like a passive observer. This weakness in the endgame is hurting your program's results; in fact, I could adopt a strategy of steering for drawish endings if I wanted to improve my results, but that could become a bad habit which might cost me dearly against decent human players. Another reason the GetClub program is viewed with disdain is that unlike other programs, it has no "protective shield" in the openings. What I mean is simply that other programs circumvent their huge inherent weakness in the opening phase via the rote fetching of moves from a large database of chess positions; what does GetClub have, maybe a couple hundred "moves" which must be played in a set order or it will kick out of its book? There really is no comparison, and I often find myself up a piece because of tactics involving the King exposed on the open e-file-- a virtual *impossibility* with most other chess programs because they stay in book well beyond castling! So you see, this alone -- as nearly-Innes likes to point out -- might well cost the GetClub program *hundreds* of rating points in strength. Face it: give me a piece (for a pawn) and I will win 95% of the time, even against a computer. The GetClub program is definitely getting stronger, but how do you propose to get more players to the site? You need to work your Web site up the ladder to near the top in Google searches; for that I suggest putting phrases like "free ice cream", "Paris Hilton" and "get rich fast" on there, at least a hundred times apiece. ;D -- help bot |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Dec 10, 7:49 pm, Mark wrote:
Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that chess originated somewhere in China. Some hold that view, yes, but it is a minority viewpoint. This is, of course, completely false. It was fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exotic origins to the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart, a rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed by Muslim scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners that were captured during the Crusades. That hypothesis is refuted by the fact that references to chess are found in Sanskrit literature from India, written around 500-600 AD. This antedates the First Crusade by at least nearly 500 years. See H.J.R. Murray's "A History of Chess" (Oxford University Press, 1913) for details. Your claim is also refuted by the fact that chess was well known in the Muslim world before the arrival of the first Crusaders in 1096. The game was introduced there from Persia, no later than about 650 AD, again centuries before the Crusades. The game only found its way to China later, carried by merchants along the silk road. Perhaps, but if so it was more likely to have come from India, not the east Mediterranean. And the fact that references to a Xiangqui- like game are found in Chinese literature as early as the Beizhou period (557-581 AD) again knocks the air out of your Crusades hypothesis. If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like me to give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than the propaganda that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, but I think I'll stick with better-researched scholarly sources. Besides Murray, I would recommend that you look into "The Anatomy of Chess" edited by Dr. Hans Ellinger (Promos-Verlag GmbH 2003). |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Dec 11, 3:35 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
Chess players who fancy themselves historians claim that chess originated somewhere in China. Some hold that view, yes, but it is a minority viewpoint. This is, of course, completely false. It was fashionable, in the 19th century, to ascribe mystical and exotic origins to the game of chess, in an attempt to romanticize what is, at its heart, a rather poor way to pass the time. In fact, chess was developed by Muslim scholars who wanted a simple way to pacify Christian prisoners that were captured during the Crusades. That hypothesis is refuted by the fact that references to chess are found in Sanskrit literature from India, written around 500-600 AD. This antedates the First Crusade by at least nearly 500 years. See H.J.R. Murray's "A History of Chess" (Oxford University Press, 1913) for details. Your claim is also refuted by the fact that chess was well known in the Muslim world before the arrival of the first Crusaders in 1096. The game was introduced there from Persia, no later than about 650 AD, again centuries before the Crusades. The game only found its way to China later, carried by merchants along the silk road. Perhaps, but if so it was more likely to have come from India, not the east Mediterranean. And the fact that references to a Xiangqui- like game are found in Chinese literature as early as the Beizhou period (557-581 AD) again knocks the air out of your Crusades hypothesis. If you have any specific questions about chess, and you would like me to give you the unadulterated truth about the game, rather than the propaganda that is typically spewed about haphazardly by the folks here in this newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, but I think I'll stick with better-researched scholarly sources. Besides Murray, I would recommend that you look into "The Anatomy of Chess" edited by Dr. Hans Ellinger (Promos-Verlag GmbH 2003). Some people couldn't spot a "troll" post if it jumped up and introduced itself. My comments were primarily directed at improving the troll's form, while the ones above take the poor fellow to task for not having read "Murray" and others. Give the poor troll a break... . -- help bot |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Dec 12, 12:30 am, help bot wrote:
On Dec 11, 11:31 am, Sanny wrote: Q: Why is it that Sanny'sGetClubprogram has "suddenly" gapped up in strength? 2 Bugs were Removed. That made the game play much stronger that you lost 4 games out of 18 played in last 2 days. I suppose try playing with Easy & Normal Level. Yes think a lot before each move and beat them. Zebediah beat Master Level in just 24 moves yesterday by trapping its Queen. Lets see if you can still beat Normal/ Master Level now? Can you Accept the Challenge with Normal/ Master Level? PlayChessat:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html They give lot of points. and only way to beat Zebediah scores. Last 5 months Zebediah has been playing only with Master Level and always winning the Game. Looks like he uses some smart computer or he is highly rated player. He's probably using a computer, so there is no fear of a 150-move struggle which lasts a month -- even against your Master level. I suspect that Fritz 5.32 could beat up on your program very easily, and he could be using one of the more recent programs which are rated over 2800. Note that when I go over the published games between grandmasters, *many* mistakes are uncovered, even by my old Fritz 5.32. I haven't studied Zeb's games, but I played over a couple where odd-looking moves sprang from out of nowhere; the same type of moves which are the very hallmark of computers. Let's say that I play a week-long battle versus your Master level, only to lose or draw; I get zero points, and a week has been wasted! Now, if I mess up against the Beginner or Easy level, it's no big deal because I have time to try again. The only downside is that I don't really have time to switch back and forth to other "tabs", because I seem to get nowhere that way, and it hurts my play. In some of the recent games where I beat the Beginner level, I was dead lost but the program seemed unable to make headway. One issue is that the program can't figure out where the action is, and it keeps its King in the wrong sector; this allows me to hold a position where I ought to have been simply "outnumbered". For instance, if the pawns are all on one side of the board in an endgame, the King should not just "hang out" on the opposite wing like a passive observer. This weakness in the endgame is hurting your program's results; in fact, I could adopt a strategy of steering for drawish endings if I wanted to improve my results, but that could become a bad habit which might cost me dearly against decent human players. Another reason theGetClubprogram is viewed with disdain is that unlike other programs, it has no "protective shield" in the openings. What I mean is simply that other programs circumvent their huge inherent weakness in the opening phase via the rote fetching of moves from a large database ofchess positions; what doesGetClubhave, maybe a couple hundred "moves" which must be played in a set order or it will kick out of its book? There really is no comparison, and I often find myself up a piece because of tactics involving the King exposed on the open e-file-- a virtual *impossibility* with most otherchessprograms because they stay in book well beyond castling! So you see, this alone -- as nearly-Innes likes to point out -- might well cost theGetClubprogram *hundreds* of rating points in strength. Face it: give me a piece (for a pawn) and I will win 95% of the time, even against a computer. TheGetClubprogram is definitely getting stronger, but how do you propose to get more players to the site? You need to work your Web site up the ladder to near the top in Google searches; for that I suggest putting phrases like "free ice cream", "Paris Hilton" and "get rich fast" on there, at least a hundred times apiece. ;D -- help bot- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Today Stinky Garlnoot Beat Master Level again in Just 31 Moves. I do not understand while you are facing Beginner as tough and take arround 50-60 Moves to win Beginner. Other Players are able to beat Master Level in just 24-30 Moves. Here is the Game between Stinky Garlnoot and Master Level White: Master Level {at GetClub} Black: Stinky Garlnoot Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php? id=DM13225&game=Chess 1. b3 e5 2. B-b2 N-c6 3. e3 d6 4. c4 N-f6 5. N-f3 g6 6. N-c3 B-g7 7. d4 B-f5 8. N-b5 0-0 9. N-g5 a6 10. N-c3 exd4 11. exd4 N-b4 12. B-e2 N-c2 13. K-f1 Nxa1 And Black wins a Rook for Knight. Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php? id=DM13225&game=Chess Please analyze above game and tell me mistake made by White in above game that it lost its Rook. Can white save its Rook? Bye Sanny Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another reason the GetClub program is viewed
with disdain is that unlike other programs, it has no "protective shield" in the openings. What I mean is simply that other programs circumvent their huge inherent weakness in the opening phase via the rote fetching of moves from a large database of chess positions; what does GetClub have, maybe a couple hundred "moves" which must be played in a set order or it will kick out of its book? There really is no comparison, and I often find myself up a piece because of tactics involving the King exposed on the open e-file-- a virtual *impossibility* with most other chess programs because they stay in book well beyond castling! So you see, this alone -- as nearly-Innes likes to point out -- might well cost the GetClub program *hundreds* of rating points in strength. Face it: give me a piece (for a pawn) and I will win 95% of the time, even against a computer. Today Stinky Garlnoot Beat Master Level again in Just 31 Moves. I do not understand while you are facing Beginner as tough and take arround 50-60 Moves to win Beginner. Other Players are able to beat Master Level in just 24-30 Moves. Here is the Game between Stinky Garlnoot and Master Level White: Master Level {at GetClub} Black: Stinky Garlnoot Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php? id=DM13225&game=Chess 1. b3 e5 2. B-b2 N-c6 3. e3 d6 4. c4 N-f6 5. N-f3 g6 6. N-c3 B-g7 7. d4 B-f5 8. N-b5 0-0 9. N-g5 a6 10. N-c3 exd4 11. exd4 N-b4 12. B-e2 N-c2 13. K-f1 Nxa1 And Black wins a Rook for Knight. Recorded Game:http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php? id=DM13225&game=Chess Please analyze above game and tell me mistake made by White in above game that it lost its Rook. Can white save its Rook? Bye Sanny Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another reason the GetClub program is viewed
with disdain is that unlike other programs, it has no "protective shield" in the openings. What I mean is simply that other programs circumvent their huge inherent weakness in the opening phase via the rote fetching of moves from a large database of chess positions; what does GetClub have, maybe a couple hundred "moves" which must be played in a set order or it will kick out of its book? There really is no comparison, and I often find myself up a piece because of tactics involving the King exposed on the open e-file-- a virtual *impossibility* with most other chess programs because they stay in book well beyond castling! So you see, this alone -- as nearly-Innes likes to point out -- might well cost the GetClub program *hundreds* of rating points in strength. Face it: give me a piece (for a pawn) and I will win 95% of the time, even against a computer. Today Stinky Garlnoot Beat Master Level again in Just 31 Moves. I do not understand while you are facing Beginner as tough and take arround 50-60 Moves to win Beginner. Other Players are able to beat Master Level in just 24-30 Moves. Here is the Game between Stinky Garlnoot and Master Level White: Master Level {at GetClub} Black: Stinky Garlnoot Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...225&game=Chess 1. b3 e5 2. B-b2 N-c6 3. e3 d6 4. c4 N-f6 5. N-f3 g6 6. N-c3 B-g7 7. d4 B-f5 8. N-b5 0-0 9. N-g5 a6 10. N-c3 exd4 11. exd4 N-b4 12. B-e2 N-c2 13. K-f1 Nxa1 And Black wins a Rook for Knight. Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...225&game=Chess Please analyze above game and tell me mistake made by White in above game that it lost its Rook. Can white save its Rook? Bye Sanny Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Chess variant email pre-sets, by Mats Winther | Mats Winther | rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) | 0 | June 16th 06 07:26 PM |
| "Swedish Chess", by Mats Winther | Mats Winther | rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) | 0 | May 25th 06 11:09 AM |
| Play chess online! Internet chess games. | nateg5@yahoo.com | alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) | 0 | January 7th 06 01:22 AM |
| Play chess online! Internet chess games. | nateg5@yahoo.com | alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) | 0 | December 29th 05 07:04 PM |
| rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] | pribut@yahoo.com | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 0 | November 3rd 05 05:30 AM |