|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 'Modeling' recent debates using chess | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
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. h52. 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. Bxf63. 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. Bxh44. 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 Ke212. 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back, there, dude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: {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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Itachi Uchiha Member (Idle past 5615 days) Posts: 272 From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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: -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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: So a US rating of roughly 2500. Okay, we can skip the game...you win!
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stipes Inactive Member |
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: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
secondlaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024