< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 59 OF 59 ·
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: BTW <visayan> you mix two things. Pillsbury played a blindfold simul while reciting a list of words, but not the list backwards. He was known for the talent to recite lists backwards but <reciting a list backwards during a blindfold simul> is not documented.|
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: <Before his chess exhibitions he would do memory tricks: fifty numbered pieces of paper, each with a five-word sentence, would be given to him. He would read them and then drop them into a hat. Next having someone would draw them out, and call out the number one by one, Harry would rattle off the correct sentence. At the end, he would then recite each sentence backwards>|
So, it was not <during> the simul, but <before> it.
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: So, Pillsbury did some memory tricks, and mythwriters decided to make it even more impressive and put it so as if he did all those tricks simultaneously. Apparently he didn't. Or did two tricks and the same time (blindfold simul+ list of words (only forward) or blindsfold simul + whist).|
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: Here one accccount of him reciting backwards <during a pause in a blindfold simul>|
<‘I think the most wonderful feat I ever saw a chessplayer perform was when Pillsbury played at the Columbia Club, Vandeventer and Lindell. He played 16 games of chess and eight games of checkers, all blindfold, and took a hand at duplicate whist at the same time. He won 15 and drew one at chess, won all the checker games and the rubber of whist. During the intermission Pillsbury picked up a copy of the Post Dispatch, read a paragraph, fully one inch deep, through once and handed the paper to me. He then repeated that paragraph backwards word for word without a single mistake.’>
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: But many of those memory feats are easier than they look when you know some mnemonic techniques. F.x this one: |
<In the next illustration a pack of cards was shuffled and about 20 dealt out, each card being called. Mr Pillsbury not seeing the cards simply listened, and then rapidly and accurately called off all the remaining cards that had not been dealt>
can be repeated by anybody with some training and with the correct memorizing technique (f.x.a pack of card as a story and then tell the missing plots)
|Nov-03-10|| ||lostemperor: <suplexer> that google video link of Kasparov does not work can you post it again, it makes me curious:)|
|Nov-03-10|| ||The Rocket: People seemed to have the missperception that a good memory has anything to do with a players streight or memorizing opening theory but its really not.|
I have an awful memory in chess yet my theoretical knowledge is quite respected.. I simply stored it in my long term memory just like almost anybody can do.
And once you reach a certain level your understanding of the game will often help you finding the theory moves if you forgot some parts of an opening.
I have read many interviews with super gms saying that they had forgotten the theory of the game they just completed... so this oustanding memory thing is probably overhyped.
|Nov-03-10|| ||nimh: <is to a 3200 elo engine.. >|
We don't know for sure what Rybka's rating would be in human rating list. 3200 comes from engine rating lists, it's impossible to compare different rating pools.
Also, you cannot ignore the role hardware plays in playing strength; engines have no strength itself.
<Rybka is not the truth in chess..>
But she is closest to the truth.
|Nov-03-10|| ||The Rocket: We know that the average opponent rybka played in the tests are stronger than any human gm, so why should it then be questioned the determined elo?.|
Also We have had many top players play old versions of fritz like kramnik and Kasparov, but then you see a new fritz vs rybka and its scores more than 70%.. classic human logic should help us here...
To make things easier to evalute this its quite evident that old anti-computer tactics dont work so that should lead us to the conclusion that rybka is indeed worth around 3000+.
There is one problem though.
if player of kramniks caliber having no intention of winning any games, would actually be able to draw such a heavy amount of games and thereby getting rybkas performance rating down from even 3000?
That would be the main issue.. all the engines playing against each other always play to win and dont take openings into conciderations and in such cases the superior engine will of course have a heavy score.
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: <We know that the average opponent rybka played in the tests are stronger than any human gm, so why should it then be questioned the determined elo?>|
1)Because they use a slightly different formula
2)Stronger than human GMs, but how much stronger? I cannot believe these are 400 points stronger than the strongest. That would imply that Rybka would <underperform> if it beats Anand 9:1 (with 9.5:0.5 it gains a bit).
|Nov-03-10|| ||Monoceros: "But she is closest to the truth."
'She'? Urgh. I can't be the only one who's creeped out by talk like this. It's a fricking computer program--rather odd as the target for a schoolboyish crush, isn't it?
|Nov-03-10|| ||The Rocket: the older engines were tested in tournaments and performed almost exactly to its estimated elo rating. so why should the new ones following the same system be any different?|
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: < the older engines were tested in tournaments and performed almost exactly to its estimated elo rating. >|
For example? (tell me the tournament <and> show computer the rating list from that time).
|Nov-03-10|| ||The Rocket: <alexmagnus>
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: Testing a 2700 rated engine on a 2300 player to prove its 2700 rating is quite unreliable though...|
|Nov-03-10|| ||suplexer: lost emporor here is the link for kaspy documentary. it is 57 minutes long enjoy.|
|Nov-03-10|| ||percyblakeney: Deep Junior must be the only engine to have participated in one of the big tournaments, in Dortmund 2000, and it finished with an even score against opposition with a 2700+ average Elo:|
|Nov-03-10|| ||keypusher: <alexmagnus: But I'm sure the words were not too long... >|
I saw one of the lists, I think in a Chernev book, so take this for what it is worth. But the words were very long and obscure. I think scientists chose them.
Has anyone seen what I'm talking about?
|Nov-03-10|| ||percyblakeney: Antiphlogistian, Periosteum, Takadiastase, Plasmon, Ambrosia, Threlkeld, streptococcus, staphylococcus, micrococcus, Mississippi, Freiheit, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, athletics, no war, Etchenberg, American, Russian, philosophy, Piet Potgelter's Rost, Salamagundi, Oomisillecottsi, Bangmamvate, Schlechter's Nek, Manzinyama, theosophy, catechism, Madjesoomalops.|
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: Hm, so a mix of something trivial ("American", "no war") and something I don't even know the meaning of (what the heck is "Madjesoomalops")?|
The "trivial" words can be connected by association+number-word chain (typical mnemonic techniques), but I'm not sure what I'd begin with rare/unknown words...
|Nov-03-10|| ||keypusher: <percyblakeney> Thanks! |
Not so fast on Schlechter's Nek, though...
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: There are some "units" in the list though, which are a good "haken" for memorizing:|
<streptococcus, staphylococcus, micrococcus> - three cocci bacteria....
<Freiheit, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, athletics, no war, Etchenberg, American, Russian>
If it were not for Etchenberg, I'd have the necessary association chain in my head immediately.
The final part of the list - <Piet Potgelter's Rost, Salamagundi, Oomisillecottsi, Bangmamvate, Schlechter's Nek, Manzinyama, theosophy, catechism, Madjesoomalops> - puzzles me though. No idea how I would memorize it lol.
|Nov-03-10|| ||rapidcitychess: <visayanbraindocter>|
I am still tormented by a game I blundered to a simple mate in one in a drawn ending... Stop replaying! Stop it! Please Mr.Brain...
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: http://userpages.monmouth.com/~colo...|
|Nov-03-10|| ||alexmagnus: With that explanation we also see more connections between the words... So memorizing that list would be even easier for someone with a broad "common" knowledge.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 59 OF 59 ·