Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Modeling' recent debates using chess
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 70 (95129)
03-27-2004 1:26 PM


I played one game of chess today against my son’s chess computer and arrived at a situation that reminded me so much of the debate games that people play here against me. After some 30 or so moves, the following position was reached with White to move.
White (me):
King on g2
Rook on g8
Pawn on h4
Black (computer):
King on e4
Bishop on d4
Knight on f6
Pawn on h6
White seems to be in trouble, but White knows enough about the game to see, already, that Black has no hope of winning.
1. Rg6
Black has no way to safely guard his h pawn, so advances it, leaving everything guarded and maintaining his lead in material.
1. h5
2. Rxf6!
An apparently ridiculous move but actually quite the opposite. White knows so well what’s actually going on on the board that he makes what others might (wrongly) consider a blunder, but he knows utterly ruins Black’s chances of winning.
2. Bxf6
3. Kh1
White could try to hold his pawn, but why? There’s really no point. He knows that Black cannot now win, and that all White has to do is to shuffle back and forth between g2, g1, and h1, so why bother doing anything else? At this point, anyone who knows what’s really going on on the board knows that Black simply cannot beat White...but Black just doesn’t get it.
3. Bxh4
4. Kg2 Ke3
5. Kh1 Bg3
6. Kg2 h4
7. Kh1 h3
8. Kg1 Ke2
9. Kh1 h2
Black sees that his king can’t approach White’s king without giving stalemate. So he attempts to make progress the only other way he can, still not realizing the truth.
10. Kg2 Ke1
Black can’t win. White just needs to stick to his guns to make his point...he doesn’t need to try anything new or to take Black on face to face.
The following is the part that really reminded me of the exchanges here lately.
11. Kh1 Ke2
12. Kg2 Bf4
13. Kh1 Be5
14. Kg2 Bd6
15. Kh1 Bc7
16. Kg2 Bb8
17. Kh1 Bc7
18. Kg2 Bd6
19. Kh1 Be5
20. Kg2 Bf4
21. Kh1 Bg3
22. Kg2 Ke3
23. Kh1 Kd3
24. Kg2 Kd4
and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. Black knows that he can’t repeat the same position three times because doing so would confirm that White achieved his goal and that Black’s attempts to win have been futile. But at the same time, Black, for some weird reason, still thinks that he has the game in the bag! So he avoids the draw and keeps playing for the win, even though he clearly can never make any progress. Black just drags the game on, needlessly, move after move and move, trying futile move after futile move. White just sticks to his guns because he knows that his goal has been reached — and in fact, was reached a long time ago (even though Black isn’t smart enough to know this).
This is very analogous to recent debates here such as:
1) Does DNA contain information as I stated? Of course it does, despite Peter’s futile and unending attempts to come out on top. We all knew this 50 moves ago, yet Peter kept trying to win the point, even though he never had a chance of winning.
2) Are there reasons to consider mutations to not be truly random, as I stated? Of course there is, despite Peter’s and Crashfrog’s futile attempts to come out on top on this.
3) Am I a Creationist, even though I’ve explicitly stated that I am not? Of course I’m not a Creationist, despite MrHambre’s repeated, yet totally futile attempts, to show otherwise.
If my opponents knew as much about what was going on as I do, they would realize when it is futile for them to continue fighting against me. Yet they press on long after the point of no hope of being victorious has been reached. The two most plausible explanations are that my opponents in fact are oblivious to the truth of the position, or they know they can’t win but continue to make moves hoping to trick others into believing they still have a chance, even though they don’t.
PS: There is a major difference betweeh the game of chess and the debates. In the chess game I found a cozy position from which my opponent could not win, thereby obtaining a draw - in the debates here, my finding such an unassailable position guarantees me the win.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by secondlaw, posted 03-30-2004 1:46 PM DNAunion has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 70 (95146)
03-27-2004 3:47 PM


Don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back, there, dude.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Amlodhi, posted 03-27-2004 6:48 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 14 by MrHambre, posted 03-30-2004 12:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 70 (95186)
03-27-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
03-27-2004 3:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by crashfrog
Don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back, there, dude.
{chuckle} . . I basically had the same reaction to that self-serving analogy. Being fond of chess myself, it sounds like DNAunion went into the endgame down on material and was fortunate enough to squeak out a defensive stalemate by repetition posture.
As to being analogous to debating positions, there are, of course, other ways in which this could be interpreted. Some might say, for instance, that he got himself backed into a corner and had to keep waffling to avoid being pinned down.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2004 3:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by DNAunion, posted 03-27-2004 7:27 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 70 (95192)
03-27-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Amlodhi
03-27-2004 6:48 PM


quote:
Being fond of chess myself, it sounds like DNAunion went into the endgame down on material and was fortunate enough to squeak out a defensive stalemate by repetition posture.
You may be fond of chess, but you apparently aren't very good. Any decent player realizes that bishop and rook pawn draws if the bishop is the wrong color and the opposing king can occupy the queening square. The game was a book draw a long time before the repetition rule kicked in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Amlodhi, posted 03-27-2004 6:48 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 5 of 70 (95210)
03-27-2004 8:28 PM


Lets set a time and date for the members of this forum to play a chess tourney on one of the many free online game sites

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by DNAunion, posted 03-27-2004 9:13 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 70 (95227)
03-27-2004 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Itachi Uchiha
03-27-2004 8:28 PM


Sorry, but not many people would stand a chance against me. I was a correspondence candidate master in the United States Chess Federation; I was also in the top 10% in OTB (over the board) play (close to 2000 rating), also in the USCF. I also had several of my analyses that trumped grandmaster lines printed in Chess Life, the USCF's national magazine, and beat Dimitri Gurevich, ranked 6th in the USA at the time, in about 20 moves (however, it was during one of his simultaneous exhibitions).
I dropped chess in favor of something that could make me money - got my BS in CIS. I've sold all but about a dozen of my chess books and having not played much over the years, amd very rusty now. I'm nowhere near as strong as I was at my prime, but still, I just achieved a rating of 1800+ at the AOL chess site (that rating is based mostly on blitz games).
*****************************
PS: Why the emphasis on people above? Because for $50 or so anyone can buy a chess program (such as those based on the Fritz chess engine) rated in the 2400's or higher. I won't play anyone without seeing them face to face because there's no way of knowing whether I am playing a person or someone who's letting a 2400+ computer do the work.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-27-2004 8:28 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-27-2004 9:55 PM DNAunion has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 7 of 70 (95245)
03-27-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DNAunion
03-27-2004 9:13 PM


I beat Nigel Short once.
In US rating system I was about 2400.
Don't play much anymore. Last time was about a year ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DNAunion, posted 03-27-2004 9:13 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by DNAunion, posted 03-27-2004 10:42 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 70 (95272)
03-27-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eta_Carinae
03-27-2004 9:55 PM


quote:
Eta_Carinae: In US rating system I was about 2400.
So about what, 2200 international (last I heard, years ago, US ratings were inflated about +200 points relative to global ratings)? Are you an IM?
quote:
Eta_Carinae: I beat Nigel Short once.
Really? Wow! Short is an IGM (international grandmaster), rated what, near 2600.
***************************
Came back to add: I just checked one of the only two FIDE Informants I still have (#49, from way back in 1990) and Nigel Short is listed as 2610.
****************************
Wait a tick. If you're "only" about 2200 internationally that's somewhere near a 400 point difference between you and Short. Probability indicates that you wouldn't be able to beat Short unless you two played numerous games against each other. And it seems unlikely that a 2200 would play against a 2600 so many times. Was your victory against Short in a simultaneous exhibition of his, or was it during an actual tournament game?
quote:
Eta_Carinae: Don't play much anymore. Last time was about a year ago.
With about a 400-rating-point spread between us, I'd have only about as much of a chance of beating you as you had against Short.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-27-2004 9:55 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-29-2004 11:53 AM DNAunion has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 9 of 70 (95654)
03-29-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by DNAunion
03-27-2004 10:42 PM


Ratings
Ok I should be more clear. I had a BCF rating of 239. This translates roughly to an ELO of around 2400.
I believe currently USCF ratings are inflated about 120 points compared to FIDE.
No I am not an IM though that was about my level in 1985 or so. I was the two time runner up in the British University Chess Tournament.
I played Nigel Short in a 'friendly' game or two about 1981 or so, a friend of mine went to high schol with him. We are only about 3 days apart in age - so we were 16 at the time. He seems to have faded a little recently but he was up to about 2725 I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by DNAunion, posted 03-27-2004 10:42 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 03-29-2004 12:58 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 11 by DNAunion, posted 03-29-2004 10:26 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 10 of 70 (95668)
03-29-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Eta_Carinae
03-29-2004 11:53 AM


Re: Ratings
My USCF rating was 1349 in 1969. I played last board for my high school chess team. We were fairly active, playing many tournaments, including the National High School held every year in NYC. I would have done better, but the cheerleaders were distracting.
I once beat a 1700! Gaze upon my powers ye mighty and despair!
--Percy
PS - Apologies to Shelly, here's the poem:
Ozymandias
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked and the heart that fed.
"And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-29-2004 11:53 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by truthlover, posted 04-26-2004 2:52 AM Percy has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 70 (95786)
03-29-2004 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Eta_Carinae
03-29-2004 11:53 AM


Re: Ratings
quote:
Eta_Carinae: Ok I should be more clear. I had a BCF rating of 239. This translates roughly to an ELO of around 2400. I believe currently USCF ratings are inflated about 120 points compared to FIDE.
So a US rating of roughly 2500. Okay, we can skip the game...you win!
quote:
Eta_Carinae: I played Nigel Short in a 'friendly' game or two about 1981 or so, a friend of mine went to high schol with him. We are only about 3 days apart in age - so we were 16 at the time.
I once played this little boy who held and talked to a stuffed dog throughout the game. At that time, to get people out of book, I was playing my own opening... 1. e4 d6 2. d4 f5!!! (found out later that it has actually been played in tournaments, by transposition: 1. d4 f5 2. e4 d6. Can't remember the name, but "folly" is in there, I believe). Of course the move isn't good (actually deserves a ?! or worse), but no one up to that point had been able to show its weakness. This little stuffed-puppy-playing boy didn't win material immediately but he put me in such a terrible position and kept the pressure on that it wasn't long before my position started to crumble. And he never relented: it's as if he didn't make any mistakes. I felt bad losing to toy-puppy petting youngster. His name was Alex Sherzer. Ring a bell? A couple of years after he easily beat me he was in Informants, beating some of the world's best.
PS: Here's one of my favorite saying about chess...paraphrasing... When studying as White no opening guarantees advantage; when studying as Black, no opening guarantees equality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-29-2004 11:53 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-30-2004 8:41 AM DNAunion has replied

  
Stipes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 70 (95851)
03-30-2004 3:12 AM


I think you all should just quit your arguing, because I am seriously the number one chess player on this planet. Hands down.

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 13 of 70 (95896)
03-30-2004 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by DNAunion
03-29-2004 10:26 PM


Reply
DNAunion,
I must admit I would be interested to know my current chess ability. I have only played a few games in the last decade or so. The most recent was with a grad student of a colleague of mine. He had a USCF rating of 2250 or so (= 2100+ FIDE). I beat him rather easily - but I would hazard that I would be no more than 2350 myself right now.
Tell me - do you play online?
I never have but I am told it is becoming a farce because people will sit there and run a program like Fritz and pretend it is them playing. A program like that for $60 plays at what - about 2400-2600?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DNAunion, posted 03-29-2004 10:26 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DNAunion, posted 03-30-2004 10:11 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 14 of 70 (95977)
03-30-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
03-27-2004 3:47 PM


Queen's Bishop, Corner Pocket
Crash,
Our buddy here knows the secret to an efficient endgame is to urinate on the table and claim victory by forfeit when your opponent runs off. Morphy used to do it all the time.
regards,
Esteban "Frick Mate" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2004 3:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
secondlaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 70 (95989)
03-30-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DNAunion
03-27-2004 1:26 PM


I would be interested in knowing
I have just recently been introduced to chess and I have a question:
would the ability to play chess well be learned, based on intelligence level, or what potentially?
I am simply amazed at the ability very young people have at the game. In what little I know, it is a game of strategy.
I'm just asking for simple opinion.
I find myself frustrated with trying to understand the goals and move in a methodical manner to achieve my goal. Rhyme and reason, as they stand in my chess game, are presently obsolete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DNAunion, posted 03-27-2004 1:26 PM DNAunion has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 03-30-2004 2:00 PM secondlaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024