< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|May-31-06|| ||blingice: I don't even know why I respond to you, because the 30 minute long-typing time responses I write to you are always deleted along with your belittling.|
|May-31-06|| ||Jilted Rook: I'm with you on this <blingice> - I've been following the debate and there seems to be a degree of bias on the part of those who have the power to delete posts.|
While some may enjoy churning through a forest of computer generated analysis i prefer human, positional analysis where positions are discussed evaluations made and concepts discussed with the support of analysis that is within the human search horizon. Some of the above searches are well beyond the horizon of even the most powerful engines - and you've got to wonder how that can be of benefit to one's understanding of chess.
|Jun-01-06|| ||ongyj: To <Jilted Rook> and <blingice> and a few others... It is not my intention to make anyone angy, but I'll like to make some things clear...|
Everyone has their own taste and preferences. In my opinion, it's absolutely fine to have your own opinion and even offer appropriate criticism(s)... The posted computer analysis may be too much to some/many that they seem... 'useless'. On the other hand, why can't you just keep an open mind on this issue? There are people who enjoys sharing and discuessing on deep computer analysis here. Look at how much interest it generated on this page with so many individual's responses expressing their interests... Why be a wet blanket here? Nobody's compelling anyone to read them. If you don't like it, just go elsewhere and find a place where you belong, along with others who share your interest. (I think that's one of the most beautiful things in life...:)
One last note to <blingice> in particular...don't feel to bad about it... At least I've read your comments directed to myself, so your post was not for naught... But then, personally, I still think your criticisms of "time wasting" crossed the line...
|Jun-01-06|| ||ongyj: PS: Hopefully there would be less postings on this kind of trivial issues and more on chess... I'll promise to do my own part from now on... :)|
|Jun-02-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: ... <and you've got to wonder how that can be of benefit to one's understanding of chess.> |
Uh - last time I checked, the only way to get better (at anything!) is to study or practice it.
Or perhaps you know a different method? If so, would you mind sharing your celestial knowledge with everyone else?
|Jun-02-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: There is also something called the "pursuit of truth." |
One could dismiss ALL the knowledge found by lower-rated players, if you want to dismiss real discovery simply because it was first found by something other than human intelligence.
To me - this would be the height of ignorance.
Those who say, "All this computer generated analysis is a waste of time," or "one should concentrate on this phase of the game instead of that phase," are only highlighting their own shortcomings.
I truly appreciate the work of <RandomVisitor>, <patzer2> ... and any other user who has gone to great lengths to work out a continuation. (Just about ALL of the regular contributors to this site - have done so at one time or another!! From <You Rang> all the way to <Hayton3>. And many others in between!)
Are we to dismiss a post every time it contains analysis? Why do some criticize analysis ... just because it does not meet their own (superficial) guidelines? Perhaps it is the pinnacle of folly to dismiss deep analysis ... simply because we don't care for the party who generated this work!
I have a brand-new, very radical and dangerous idea. Let everyone pursue their own avenue of truth. Some people dig the opening, others the middlegame, and still others like the final phase of the game. Let each person contribute to this site as their skills, talents and the power of their main processor allow. And for the ones that don't approve, I simply suggest that you look the other way ... or maybe take up sudoku.
|Jun-02-06|| ||Jilted Rook: <LIFE Master AJ> <Uh - last time I checked, the only way to get better (at anything!) is to study or practice it.> I don't disagree - I just consider the human method of study (pattern recognition) of more benefit than following a 20 ply analysis by an engine that doesn't understand chess.|
|Jun-03-06|| ||technical draw: Anyone know what a pseudo-intellectual is?|
|Jun-03-06|| ||Open Defence: <pseudo-intellectual> George W Bush comes to mind :-D|
|Jun-03-06|| ||technical draw: Maybe a good definition is someone that uses big words or phrases taken out of a dictionary to try to convey* the idea that he possesses a higher vocabulary or intellect* than he really does. Of course it would be the pinnacle of folly* on my part to suggest a name or point to a specific* person. It would also be the height of ignorance* on my part to believe this post will not be erradicated* from this forum* (forae?)*|
|Jun-03-06|| ||RandomVisitor: The 29...Qb2 30. Qc2 Rxf4 31. Qxd1 Rxf2+ 32. Kxf2 Qxa1 33. Qd3 line, to say the least, is unclear, nearly a month and a half after it was discovered by members on this forum. This is a rare type of position that has not benefited from computer analysis. |
Perhaps positions of this type just take years to resolve. Perhaps 5 years from now, someone using Rybka 23.1 will search to 50 plys and discover a win for Black. Until then we will just never know.
|Jun-03-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: < <Random Visitor> Perhaps positions of this type just take years to resolve. Perhaps 5 years from now, someone using Rybka 23.1 will search to 50 plys and discover a win for Black. Until then we will just never know. > |
I will not belabor my side of this analytical argument any further - suffice it to say that no one has come close to refuting my last line ... (although a few have tried).
At the current state of technology - no chess engine has found a definitive solution to some of the anaytical questions posed here, giving us humans something to rejoice about. (Indeed, if it were a mate in three, and the solution was so simple that all anyone had to do were turn on their box to discover the answer, I doubt that anyone would have wasted much time on it.)
|Jun-04-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: << Jun-03-06 <technical draw>: Maybe a good definition is someone that uses big words or phrases taken out of a dictionary to try to convey* the idea that he possesses a higher vocabulary or intellect* than he really does. >> |
Just because you lack a formal education ...
|Jun-04-06|| ||technical draw: Some people think an Air Force High School equivalent diploma is formal education.|
|Jun-05-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Jun-04-06
<technical draw>: Some people think an Air Force High School equivalent diploma is formal education.>
I have taken many college level courses.
I completed most or all of the Law and Criminal Science courses at the University of New Mexico. (I was stationed at Kirtland A.F.B. for almost five years.) It was my plan to get a degree in Criminal Science there, but then I was transferred and never found another school that I liked as much as UNM. (But I have taken other correspondence courses as well. I completed several years worth of courses in less than one year while stationed in Iceland.)
Of course no one believes you are a 2500+ player, as you state in your profile.
|Jun-05-06|| ||azaris: Boasting about taking a few college level classes on a chess site where many people are lawyers, physicians, or research scientists seems a bit pretentious.|
|Jun-05-06|| ||technical draw: <LMAJ> Thanks for reading my profile. Those courses did come in handy.|
|Jun-05-06|| ||technical draw: <I completed most or all of the law...> Most or all? Don't you know?|
|Jun-07-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Years ago - just when computers were starting to get good - I wrote that there were many games ... that, while thought to be brilliant, would be reevaluated in the light of machine analysis. |
I actually was peaking in a "far-future" type of tense, I did not really expect for computers to make such huge strides of progress so darned quickly. (Of course, this contest would be an excellent example of what I was referring to.)
And <RandomVisitor> is to be commended on his analysis, it takes not only a good program to find unusual moves, but also an operator of some skill as well.
|Jan-13-09|| ||WhiteRook48: even though white has two passed pawns...
|Aug-05-09|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.ajschess.com/lifemastera...|
|Apr-26-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Also http://www.impalapublications.com/b....|
|May-06-11|| ||perfidious: Avenue of truth, indeed!
There is only one such route to Utopia, and it's high time we among the unwashed masses see the light.
<Jilted Rook: .....I've been following the debate and there seems to be a degree of bias on the part of those who have the power to delete posts.>
Not to mention the chief poster, and poseur, on this game.
<While some may enjoy churning through a forest of computer generated analysis i prefer human, positional analysis where positions are discussed evaluations made and concepts discussed with the support of analysis that is within the human search horizon.>
As an experienced master, I can tell you this: you can have access to every book written and program ever designed, but there's no substitute for the combination of knowledge and understanding.
When I offer my thoughts here, my aim is to explain them in logical terms, and it would be so even if I had Rybka, Shredder or one of the other programs out there. There's only so much one can learn with the aid of those.
|Dec-06-15|| ||SpiritedReposte: A French so complicated I thought it was Sicilian.|
|Apr-22-17|| ||Saniyat24: 29...Qb2!!!!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·