Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.gamesforum.ca/showthread.php?t=318...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Re: Chess in crisis - Games Forum - Playstation 3 & Xbox 360 Games Discussion
THE DANGER IS REAL
M.
Quote: :
>Fide-chess is facing a problem.
Undoubtedly the game will survive, but
professional chess faces a predicament due to the theoretical
development.>
The topic of destroying chess to save it was addressed in THIS CRAZY
WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans.
Page 45:
The first computer world championship was held at Stockholm in 1975.
Thats ancient history.
Artificial intelligence is still in its
infancy, but hand held programs already can find the best move in a
split second.
Nowadays there are two crowns: one for us and one for
them.
In the early days of automation, Canadas Nathan Divinsky, a math
professor and chess master, predicted: "Machines can certainly solve
the mysteries of chess.
As soon as this happens the game will vanish.
It will become another mathematical theorem locked away in a cold
book.
Few will look at the body as it is buried.
Few will know the
details of the inhuman calculation.
They will only know that a good
and warm friend has perished."
Who knows what the future will bring?
The speed of cars hasnt killed
racing, and the agility of fish hasnt daunted swimmers.
Still, many
chess pros fear they might become obsolete.
Who will pay to watch a
contest that machines can do far better than humans?
Perhaps the only
sporting interest left for spectators will consist of comparing the
move chosen by masters with the one recommended by computers.
Page 200:
Despite nearly 100,000 members (mostly under age 20) the USCF teeters
on the brink of bankruptcy after decades of massive mismanagement.
The USCF president avers, "The National Scholastic Championships are
worth a lot of money.
They have a tremendous potential and we can run
them very effectively."
Thousands of kids now pay entry fees competing for college
scholarships and trophies, making these mega-events a cash cow.
Big
bucks, even from selling concession rights, but where is it all going?
In a controversial 24-page article "Scholastics and the Soul of
Chess," Tom Braunlich argues that all is not rosy for organized chess!
He notes that most kids quit after high school while real adult
membership in the USCF has steadily declined, and he berates educators
who use chess as a learning tool or team sport while ignoring real
talent.
Yet why encourage kids to be chess pros when its not lucrative and a
pocket computer can spot the best move in a split second?
If most kids
lose interest when they enter the real world to earn a living, so
what?
Once bitten by the chess bug they often return to the game as a
hobby after raising a family.
Unlike golf, there are no huge green fees and one chess set lasts a
lifetime.
Thats just fine with me.
M.
Quote: :
> Fide-chess is facing a problem.
Undoubtedly the game will survive, but
>
Professional chess faces a predicament due to the theoretical
>
Development. In the future, all the best lines for white and black
>
Will have been outlined, and games will revolve around memory
>
Dexterity. Already, English opening has been solved as drawn, and
>
There is no use in playing it among professionals.
Nobody plays King's
>
Gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings.
They have been solved.
Comparatively,
>
Anglo-Saxon checkers has been solved, too (see Scient.
Amer. article:
>
Http://tiny.cc/wWDuG ).
Although checkers is a wonderful game that
>
Will always be played among amateurs, the checkers professionals now
>
Face a serious problem.
The computers have brought us to this, but we
>
Can handle it by slightly increasing the complexity of the game.
>
>
For amateur chess players 1.d3 is good enough, but not to the elite.
>
To them, also the Closed Sicilian is obsolete.
It has been
> strategically solved.
It's no use playing it in a super grandmaster
>
Tournament anymore.
>
>
As an example of the numerous suggestions to address the problem, I
>
Have suggested adding an extra square to the right of each player in
>
Neoorthodox chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm
>
>
But I don't know the opening play consequences of this, while an extra
>
Weakness is introduced on the first rank.
However, the strategical
>
Consequences are very wholesome.
Suddenly the Closed Sicilian comes to
>
Live while it's now possible to advance more rashly with the pawns on
>
The king's wing.
>
>
From an historical perpective, chess during the medieval era was a
>
Very popular parlour game, especially among the upper classes.
But
> by the turn of the seventeenth century it was no longer fashionable.
>
Marilyn Yalom says:
>
>
"...Ironically enough, it may be that the elevation of the chess queen
>
And the bishop to new levels of strength had something to do with the
>
Dwindling numbers of female participants.
Once those two pieces
>
Acquired a greater range of mobility, it took fewer moves, on average,
>
To complete a match.
New chess was no longer suited to leisurely
>
Encounters between ladies and gentlemen that could last a day or more,
>
With interruptions for eating, drinking, dancing, and singing, or, in
>
More plebian settings, for stirring the pot and nursing the baby.
New
> chess was fast and fierce.
A match could be over in a few hours or
>
Even a few moves if you didn't pay strict attention.
Hands had to be
>
Ready to grasp a piece on the board, and not a knee under the table.
>
Chess would no longer tolerate dalliance of any sort.
As chess became
>
Less social and more competitive, the professional chess player
>
Arrived on the scene.
Forget the troubadour chess partner or the
>
Attentive lover or even the town Wunderkind who was allowed to take
>
Time off after the harvest to play with the local lord.
Now there were
>
Full-time champions earning their living from arranged matches in
>
Princely settings throughout Europe...." (Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen,
>
Pp. 228-9).
>
>
It is against this backdrop that we must view many chess variants of
>
Later date. For instance, certain big board variants (10x10) fulfil
>
The criterion of a slower game suitable for the leisurely parlour.
I
> mention two examples, Paulovits's variant c.
1890 :
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/paulovitsgame.htm and my own Mastodon
>
Chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm
>
>
To the modern chess players the empty spaces at the flanks must appear
>
Like immense deserts where pieces can squander about without seeing
>
Much sign of enemy opposition.
Such a game can never acquire the
>
"nerve" of standard chess.
But this is a good quality because then we
>
Are somehow back at the leisurely parlour game where the technique of
>
Moving pieces needn't be that exacting.
>
>
I want to strike a blow for a form of chess which isn't that
>
Competitive. The above two big board variants contain many finesses,
>
But if played by strong players they are likely to end in a draw, I
>
Suppose. Outside the sporting context this is not disadvantageous.
If
> we want a still slower game then we can turn to 1000 year old Shatranj
>
Kamil, allegedly invented by Timur Lenk.
There are also slow standard
>
Board variants, like Thai Chess (Makruk).
>
>
The conclusion is that it's much up to the character of the game and
>
Its rules if a game is to become a popular social occupation.
Chess
> had acquired an immense romantic status during the medieval era, but
>
Now there is almost nothing left of this.
During the 19th century,
>
People could still be seen playing chess in a lounge, smoking a cigar,
>
Sipping from a glass of cognac.
But today chess is merely
>
Professional. Occasional park players also want money.
>
>
There is however another aspect to discuss.
A game can also become
>
More leisurely and parlour if it encourages phantasy and
>
Combinations. In such case there is no room for ruminations.
This is
> probably why Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) (
>
Http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinesechess.htm ) is the world's most
>
Popular game. It is superficial but very adventurous, played with very
>
Weak pieces, considerably weaker than in medieval European chess,
>
Even.
>
> Another obvious advantage with chess variants is that you can partake in
>
An email chess tournament knowing that it's a human opponent you are
>
Playing against, as there are no really strong programs that can play all
>
These thousands of chess variants.
This is a huge advantage.
On MindSports (
>
Http://www.mindsports.net/index-mindsports.html ) you can play Grand
>
Chess, and at play.chessvariants.com you can play, e.g.
Commodore Chess
>
( http://www.chessvariants.org/index/m...commodorechess )
>
Or Gunnery Chess
>
( http://www.chessvariants.org/index/m...MPgunnerychess )
>
Etc., etc.
>
>
Mats
|
|
On Aug 17, 10:42 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" Quote: :
>
>
The topic of destroying chess to save it was addressed in THIS CRAZY
>
WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans.
>
The first computer world championship was held at Stockholm in 1975.
Most sources list 1974.
I wonder which is correct?
>
Thats ancient history.
Artificial intelligence is still in its
>
Infancy
How can something be "ancient history" and also "in its infancy"?
>
In the early days of automation, Canadas Nathan Divinsky, a math
>
Professor and chess master,
I didn't know Divinsky was even alive in "the early days of
automation."
|
|
On Aug 17, 2:07*pm, SBD Quote: :
>
On Aug 17, 10:42 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" Quote: :
>
>
>
>
> The topic of destroying chess to save it was addressed in THIS CRAZY
>
> WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans.
>
> The first computer world championship was held at Stockholm in 1975.
>
>
Most sources list 1974.
I wonder which is correct?
>
>
> Thats ancient history.
Artificial intelligence is still in its
>
> infancy
>
>
How can something be "ancient history" and also "in its infancy"?
>
>
> In the early days of automation, Canadas Nathan Divinsky, a math
>
> professor and chess master,
>
>
I didn't know Divinsky was even alive in "the early days of
>
Automation."
Heck yes, before the advent of computers, Nathan was an integral part
of a think-tank that was creating golden bejeweled wind-up clockwork
chess playing birds that twittered, blinked, flapped their wings and
could play a mean Kings Gambit.
|
|
HAND HELD DEVICES
As Quote: d by Mr.
Parr, Grandmaster Evans in several pieces of popular
writing, in broad brush strokes, discusses the impact of mobile
computing power on the chess world.
One may criticize his writing
style, but the topic is quite interesting and the writing is engaging.
I'd like to move past the comments on writing style and muse about the
topic.
I occasionally enjoy a speculative romp through potential futures via
science fiction.
I just finished reading "Postsingular" by Rudy Rucker.
Very entertaining.
I recommend it. In this spirit, I imagined the
following scenario...
Not too far in the future, a young father is sitting at his antique
computer in a small den observing a world chess championship game via
the current network chess service.
The adversaries are locked in tense
conflict.
Meanwhile, the father is also watching after his young five year old
daughter Susan, who is sitting on the carpet playing with her little
baby doll named "LuLu." LuLu is not just a doll;
She is a "hand held
device."
Her designers, with advanced robotics, have given her the ability to pee
and poo, and whine for a diaper change.
This is thrilling for Susan who
squeals with delight.
Lulu was also given the ability, via a weaker
piece of software, to play chess at a 3000+ level.
While squirming through a diaper change, LuLu points to one of the
competitors on the computer and says, "She make bad boo boo.
Nf2 much
better." Susan looks up at her father and asks, "Daddy, Why are they
playing doll games?"
Why indeed...
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev.
J.D. Walker
Quote: :
>
THE DANGER IS REAL
>
>
M. Quote: :
>>
Fide-chess is facing a problem.
Undoubtedly the game will survive, but
>
Professional chess faces a predicament due to the theoretical
>
Development.>
>
>
The topic of destroying chess to save it was addressed in THIS CRAZY
>
WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans.
>
>
Page 45:
>
>
The first computer world championship was held at Stockholm in 1975.
>
Thats ancient history.
Artificial intelligence is still in its
>
Infancy, but hand held programs already can find the best move in a
>
Split second. Nowadays there are two crowns: one for us and one for
>
Them.
>
> In the early days of automation, Canadas Nathan Divinsky, a math
>
Professor and chess master, predicted: "Machines can certainly solve
>
The mysteries of chess.
As soon as this happens the game will vanish.
>
It will become another mathematical theorem locked away in a cold
>
Book. Few will look at the body as it is buried.
Few will know the
>
Details of the inhuman calculation.
They will only know that a good
>
And warm friend has perished."
>
>
Who knows what the future will bring?
The speed of cars hasnt killed
>
Racing, and the agility of fish hasnt daunted swimmers.
Still, many
> chess pros fear they might become obsolete.
Who will pay to watch a
>
Contest that machines can do far better than humans?
Perhaps the only
>
Sporting interest left for spectators will consist of comparing the
>
Move chosen by masters with the one recommended by computers.
>
>
Page 200:
>
>
Despite nearly 100,000 members (mostly under age 20) the USCF teeters
>
On the brink of bankruptcy after decades of massive mismanagement.
>
>
The USCF president avers, "The National Scholastic Championships are
>
Worth a lot of money.
They have a tremendous potential and we can run
>
Them very effectively."
>
>
Thousands of kids now pay entry fees competing for college
>
Scholarships and trophies, making these mega-events a cash cow.
Big
> bucks, even from selling concession rights, but where is it all going?
>
>
In a controversial 24-page article "Scholastics and the Soul of
>
Chess," Tom Braunlich argues that all is not rosy for organized chess!
>
He notes that most kids quit after high school while real adult
>
Membership in the USCF has steadily declined, and he berates educators
>
Who use chess as a learning tool or team sport while ignoring real
>
Talent.
>
>
Yet why encourage kids to be chess pros when its not lucrative and a
>
Pocket computer can spot the best move in a split second?
If most kids
>
Lose interest when they enter the real world to earn a living, so
>
What? Once bitten by the chess bug they often return to the game as a
>
Hobby after raising a family.
>
>
Unlike golf, there are no huge green fees and one chess set lasts a
>
Lifetime. Thats just fine with me.
>
>
>
>
M. Quote: :
>>
Fide-chess is facing a problem.
Undoubtedly the game will survive, but
>>
Professional chess faces a predicament due to the theoretical
>>
Development. In the future, all the best lines for white and black
>>
Will have been outlined, and games will revolve around memory
>>
Dexterity. Already, English opening has been solved as drawn, and
>>
There is no use in playing it among professionals.
Nobody plays King's
>>
Gambit anymore, or Bc4 openings.
They have been solved.
Comparatively,
>>
Anglo-Saxon checkers has been solved, too (see Scient.
Amer. article:
>>
Http://tiny.cc/wWDuG ).
Although checkers is a wonderful game that
>>
Will always be played among amateurs, the checkers professionals now
>>
Face a serious problem.
The computers have brought us to this, but we
>>
Can handle it by slightly increasing the complexity of the game.
>>
>>
For amateur chess players 1.d3 is good enough, but not to the elite.
>>
To them, also the Closed Sicilian is obsolete.
It has been
>>
Strategically solved.
It's no use playing it in a super grandmaster
>>
Tournament anymore.
>>
>>
As an example of the numerous suggestions to address the problem, I
>>
Have suggested adding an extra square to the right of each player in
>>
Neoorthodox chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/neoorthodoxchess.htm
>>
>>
But I don't know the opening play consequences of this, while an extra
>>
Weakness is introduced on the first rank.
However, the strategical
>>
Consequences are very wholesome.
Suddenly the Closed Sicilian comes to
>>
Live while it's now possible to advance more rashly with the pawns on
>>
The king's wing.
>>
>>
From an historical perpective, chess during the medieval era was a
>>
Very popular parlour game, especially among the upper classes.
But
>> by the turn of the seventeenth century it was no longer fashionable.
>>
Marilyn Yalom says:
>>
>>
"...Ironically enough, it may be that the elevation of the chess queen
>>
And the bishop to new levels of strength had something to do with the
>>
Dwindling numbers of female participants.
Once those two pieces
>>
Acquired a greater range of mobility, it took fewer moves, on average,
>>
To complete a match.
New chess was no longer suited to leisurely
>>
Encounters between ladies and gentlemen that could last a day or more,
>>
With interruptions for eating, drinking, dancing, and singing, or, in
>>
More plebian settings, for stirring the pot and nursing the baby.
New
>> chess was fast and fierce.
A match could be over in a few hours or
>>
Even a few moves if you didn't pay strict attention.
Hands had to be
>>
Ready to grasp a piece on the board, and not a knee under the table.
>>
Chess would no longer tolerate dalliance of any sort.
As chess became
>>
Less social and more competitive, the professional chess player
>>
Arrived on the scene.
Forget the troubadour chess partner or the
>>
Attentive lover or even the town Wunderkind who was allowed to take
>>
Time off after the harvest to play with the local lord.
Now there were
>>
Full-time champions earning their living from arranged matches in
>>
Princely settings throughout Europe...." (Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen,
>>
Pp. 228-9).
>>
>>
It is against this backdrop that we must view many chess variants of
>>
Later date. For instance, certain big board variants (10x10) fulfil
>>
The criterion of a slower game suitable for the leisurely parlour.
I
>> mention two examples, Paulovits's variant c.
1890 :
>> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/paulovitsgame.htm and my own Mastodon
>>
Chess: http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/mastodon.htm
>>
>>
To the modern chess players the empty spaces at the flanks must appear
>>
Like immense deserts where pieces can squander about without seeing
>>
Much sign of enemy opposition.
Such a game can never acquire the
>>
"nerve" of standard chess.
But this is a good quality because then we
>>
Are somehow back at the leisurely parlour game where the technique of
>>
Moving pieces needn't be that exacting.
>>
>>
I want to strike a blow for a form of chess which isn't that
>>
Competitive. The above two big board variants contain many finesses,
>>
But if played by strong players they are likely to end in a draw, I
>>
Suppose. Outside the sporting context this is not disadvantageous.
If
>> we want a still slower game then we can turn to 1000 year old Shatranj
>>
Kamil, allegedly invented by Timur Lenk.
There are also slow standard
>>
Board variants, like Thai Chess (Makruk).
>>
>>
The conclusion is that it's much up to the character of the game and
>>
Its rules if a game is to become a popular social occupation.
Chess
>> had acquired an immense romantic status during the medieval era, but
>>
Now there is almost nothing left of this.
During the 19th century,
>>
People could still be seen playing chess in a lounge, smoking a cigar,
>>
Sipping from a glass of cognac.
But today chess is merely
>>
Professional. Occasional park players also want money.
>>
>>
There is however another aspect to discuss.
A game can also become
>>
More leisurely and parlour if it encourages phantasy and
>>
Combinations. In such case there is no room for ruminations.
This is
>> probably why Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) (
>>
Http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinesechess.htm ) is the world's most
>>
Popular game. It is superficial but very adventurous, played with very
>>
Weak pieces, considerably weaker than in medieval European chess,
>>
Even.
>>
>>
Another obvious advantage with chess variants is that you can partake in
>>
An email chess tournament knowing that it's a human opponent you are
>>
Playing against, as there are no really strong programs that can play all
>>
These thousands of chess variants.
This is a huge advantage.
On MindSports (
>>
Http://www.mindsports.net/index-mindsports.html ) you can play Grand
>>
Chess, and at play.chessvariants.com you can play, e.g.
Commodore Chess
>>
( http://www.chessvariants.org/index/m...commodorechess )
>>
Or Gunnery Chess
>>
( http://www.chessvariants.org/index/m...MPgunnerychess )
>>
Etc., etc.
>>
>>
Mats
|
|
On Aug 17, 3:33 pm, "J.D.
Walker" Quote: :
>
HAND HELD DEVICES
>
>
As Quote: d by Mr.
Parr, Grandmaster Evans in several pieces of popular
>
Writing, in broad brush strokes, discusses the impact of mobile
>
Computing power on the chess world.
One may criticize his writing
>
Style, but the topic is quite interesting and the writing is engaging.
The writing is engaging only if you don't try to engage the topic too
deeply.
I'm less concerned about the fluffy writing than I am in the blatant
disregard for facts, although I do find that the so-called "engaging"
writing is really a cover for lack of any engagement with the
material.
In the hands of a competent analyst, the topic is indeed interesting.
That is not the case here.
|
|
Quote: :
> On Aug 17, 3:33 pm, "J.D.
Walker" Quote: :
>>
HAND HELD DEVICES
>>
>>
As Quote: d by Mr.
Parr, Grandmaster Evans in several pieces of popular
>>
Writing, in broad brush strokes, discusses the impact of mobile
>>
Computing power on the chess world.
One may criticize his writing
>>
Style, but the topic is quite interesting and the writing is engaging.
>
>
The writing is engaging only if you don't try to engage the topic too
>
Deeply.
Why should the topic be engaged deeply in a collection of wide-ranging
newspaper chess articles?
This is not intended to be a scholarly work.
I think a better measure for success, in this case, is how well the
book is selling relative to other chess books.
This I do not know.
Mr.
Parr probably does know.
>
I'm less concerned about the fluffy writing than I am in the blatant
>
Disregard for facts, although I do find that the so-called "engaging"
>
Writing is really a cover for lack of any engagement with the
>
Material.
>
>
In the hands of a competent analyst, the topic is indeed interesting.
>
That is not the case here.
Thankfully people can still talk and write without the permission of
"competent analysts." Civil discourse between everyday people is not
just possible, but essential.
People can still write newspaper articles
without government or academic control.
This may not be the case in the
future when corporate media consolidation finishes crushing the
diversity of communication.
Then the mind police may well dress
themselves up in the garb of "competent analysts."
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev.
J.D. Walker
|
|
On Aug 18, 8:14 am, "J.D.
Walker" Quote: :
>
Quote: :
> >
On Aug 17, 3:33 pm, "J.D.
Walker" Quote: :
>
>> HAND HELD DEVICES
>
>
>> As Quote: d by Mr.
Parr, Grandmaster Evans in several pieces of popular
>
>> writing, in broad brush strokes, discusses the impact of mobile
>
>> computing power on the chess world.
One may criticize his writing
>
>> style, but the topic is quite interesting and the writing is engaging.
>
>
> The writing is engaging only if you don't try to engage the topic too
>
> deeply.
>
>
Why should the topic be engaged deeply in a collection of wide-ranging
>
Newspaper chess articles?
This is not intended to be a scholarly work.
>
I think a better measure for success, in this case, is how well the
>
Book is selling relative to other chess books.
This I do not know.
Mr.
> Parr probably does know.
I always had a dim view of the idea that large sales have much to do
with the quality of a book.
As one of my editors told me once, " I
don't care if the book is good.
I care that it sells."
Scholarly?
No. No one expects it to be, although Evans certainly wrote
chess works early in his career that could be close, and were amongst
the best I have seen.
But a book is not scholarly simply because it is
accurate.
If you can't even take the time to get a date correct, what
sort of care are you assigning this topic???
Of course, I still have trouble believing Evans writes such drivel;
I
still think it is Parr who writes this trash under Evans' name.
That
is perhaps a silly notion, but it allows me to keep some respect for
one of the greatest American GMs ever.
The day I believe Evans is
turning out this kind of trash will be sad for me.
>
Then the mind police may well dress
>
Themselves up in the garb of "competent analysts."
They may well, or they may wear green overalls.
What does that have to
do with the topic, which is underdiscussed - in my opinion of course -
in the book?
And of course people may well discuss these things without competent
analysts.
But why pay for a book in which the topic is discussed on a
level below that of a junior high student?
Sure, discuss it here for
free - you can even make up goofy stories about pooping dolls that
analyze the Cochrane Countergambit in detail.
And paranoid drivel
about "mind police" and their attire
|
|
"J.D. Walker" <j.d.walker@comcast.net>
Wrote in message
news:q9OdnUhrmb9C6DTVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com.
..
> Quote: :
>>
On Aug 17, 3:33 pm, "J.D.
Walker" Quote: :
>>>
HAND HELD DEVICES
>>>
>>>
As Quote: d by Mr.
Parr, Grandmaster Evans in several pieces of popular
>>>
Writing, in broad brush strokes, discusses the impact of mobile
>>>
Computing power on the chess world.
One may criticize his writing
>>>
Style, but the topic is quite interesting and the writing is engaging.
>>
>>
The writing is engaging only if you don't try to engage the topic too
>>
Deeply.
>
>
Why should the topic be engaged deeply in a collection of wide-ranging
>
Newspaper chess articles?
This is not intended to be a scholarly work.
I
> think a better measure for success, in this case, is how well the book is
>
Selling relative to other chess books.
This I do not know.
Mr. Parr
> probably does know.
>
>>
I'm less concerned about the fluffy writing than I am in the blatant
>>
Disregard for facts, although I do find that the so-called "engaging"
>>
Writing is really a cover for lack of any engagement with the
>>
Material.
>>
>>
In the hands of a competent analyst, the topic is indeed interesting.
>>
That is not the case here.
>
>
Thankfully people can still talk and write without the permission of
>
"competent analysts." Civil discourse between everyday people is not just
>
Possible, but essential.
People can still write newspaper articles
>
Without government or academic control.
This may not be the case in the
>
Future when corporate media consolidation finishes crushing the diversity
>
Of communication.
Then the mind police may well dress themselves up in
>
The garb of "competent analysts."
>
--
A neutral point to personality, but 'musing-on' to content:- I see that
Dr.
Alberts has completed more analysis of computing ability from his recent
attendence at Wijk aan Zee, and is intending another title on MAMS [Man
Assisted Computer (Shach) Chess].
He is in a sense no expert in chess other than his application to it.
OTOH,
he is an expert in research methodology since he has supported 3 Nobel Prize
Winners.
I think his second and subsequent titles will improve on his first effort
based on its critical reception, and aided by such reviews of it as 2
writers in this very newsgroup performed: Dr.s Dowd and Walker.
What interests me is that what Alberts achieves is very similar to what
Evans achieved - in a cross discplinary topic, they both make successful
transits back and forth twixt the language of chess understanding and
technological understanding, so that on any specific we understand some
degree of technological finesse /together/ with an understanding of chess
written, in normal chess terms.
Alberts takes on very difficult levels of play, and also problems which
foxed computing and players for a long time.
His particular bent is
recognising where the computer program loses track of things, and where
human intercession makes radical difference.
Given that this is very difficult work, hardly precedented, then one might
forgive an athor very much.
It is possibly a means to re-unite what I
understand Evans' comments to be, the divorced subject of chess computing
and AI, and of 'expert systems' generally.
Cordially, Phil Innes
>
"Do that which is right..."
>
>
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
|
J.D. Quote: :
>
Quote: :
>>
On Aug 17, 3:33 pm, "J.D.
Walker" Quote: :
>>>
HAND HELD DEVICES
>>>
>>>
As Quote: d by Mr.
Parr, Grandmaster Evans in several pieces of
>>>
Popular writing, in broad brush strokes, discusses the impact of
>>>
Mobile computing power on the chess world.
One may criticize his
>>>
Writing style, but the topic is quite interesting and the writing
>>>
Is engaging.
>>
>>
The writing is engaging only if you don't try to engage the topic too
>>
Deeply.
>
>
Why should the topic be engaged deeply in a collection of wide-ranging
>
Newspaper chess articles?
This is not intended to be a scholarly
>
Work. I think a better measure for success, in this case, is how
>
Well the book is selling relative to other chess books.
This I do
> not know.
Mr. Parr probably does know.
>
>>
I'm less concerned about the fluffy writing than I am in the blatant
>>
Disregard for facts, although I do find that the so-called "engaging"
>>
Writing is really a cover for lack of any engagement with the
>>
Material.
>>
>>
In the hands of a competent analyst, the topic is indeed interesting.
>>
That is not the case here.
>
>
Thankfully people can still talk and write without the permission of
>
"competent analysts." Civil discourse between everyday people is not
>
Just possible, but essential.
People can still write newspaper
>
Articles without government or academic control.
This may not be the
>
Case in the future when corporate media consolidation finishes
>
Crushing the diversity of communication.
Then the mind police may
>
Well dress themselves up in the garb of "competent analysts."
Nobody suggested that anybody should not write whatever he pleases.
However, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that what was
written is superficial or incorrect or unsubstantiated gossip when
this is the case.
When, as we saw, Parr parrots Evans and Evans paraphrases Fine and
Fine paraphrases Einstein, misunderstanding what Einstein wrote, then
you have a chain of 3 incompetent reporters.
There is nothing wrong
with pointing out to potential readers that Parr is incompetent,
Evans is sloppy and Fine ignorant of the subject at hand.
|
|
[...]
>
> Of course, I still have trouble believing Evans writes such drivel;
I
> still think it is Parr who writes this trash under Evans' name.
This has occurred to me also.
This would explain Parr's
absurd habit of quoting Evans in response to postings he dislikes.
|
|
|
|