Clinging to a life with zero quality? Aren't you being a bit dramatic about Aaron? Seriously? Or are you mistaking my argument for saying that suicide is NEVER good? If so, you need to learn about context.
Oh dear God, are you serious? Suicide is bravery? I will echo the AC's sentiment when I say that you and the mod who voted you up should seek professional help.
Yup. Basically you have a child who was socialized to believe that as long as he felt he was right, his actions are justified and would not carry consequences. Even if he is morally right with his belief that this information SHOULD be free (not saying he is), he either has to comply with the laws or be willing to suffer the consequences to sand up for his beliefs.
Aaron is not a hero. Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out.
Why is that? Right now, North Korea is a nice bargaining chip for China. The US doesn't want a direct conflict with China so cannot directly attack North Korea. When the time is right, China will reign in North Korea (for a time) in exchange for some concessions from the US. It is a poker game with an element of risk, but North Korea is a high face card in China's hand.
1) What you say is not true. Anonymous targets folks they disagree with. 2) One can define "actively messing with other people" however they want. A jihadist would use the exact same term to describe what they do. 2) Even if what you said were entirely true, what you are describing is "vigilantism". In the movies this is great. In the real world you end up with a might makes right society. You and the jihadist are in complete agreement that this is acceptable.
Where did you get that I said that finite time has anything to do with NP? I simply corrected his assertion that the game could not be solved in finite time. I even said that the time solved with today's technology would be greater than the lifespan of the universe but finite. So, not sure why you are taking issue with my post.
If you haven't already, try out chesstempo.com. This sounds like it would fit well with your review of tactics. You are not penalized for taking your time but rather on whether you calculate correctly or not. I enjoy the site a lot.
I am definitely not a strong player by any stretch and am getting into chess again after a long hiatus (kids are finally old enough and interested enough). I'll let you know how it goes over the next year or so:)
Well, if you think it was me, you are wrong. But the AC is quite correct. Your "fools mate" test is idiotic, and there is no way that you are a strong chess players and likely not a chess player at all. I don't log off to make insults.
The computer is there to be abused:) I am very interested in the process of improving at chess and what causes people to plateau. So, I've taken to a number of strategies to evaluate effectiveness. Ultimately, to improve, I found that one must truly understand what one does not understand. This sounds superficial or even tautological, but it isn't. Too often players chalk losses up to a "random blunder" or not having memorized an opening enough. The reality is that our minds have a very small set of "rules" we use to select moves.
During these sessions I actually wrote down my candidate moves for each move, and then wrote a rationale for why I chose the move. Often, one can make the right move for the wrong reasons and the other way around as well. By understanding thinking patterns, i can later identify mistakes and enlist stronger players in reviewing my games. It is effective, but very very very time consuming and energy consuming.
Fortunately, the computer is a patient partner. The downside is it cannot offer truly insightful commentary to help a human player. For that you need a mentor, or at the minimum a peer to assist.
Watch a computer play the defending side. It will always pick the move that requires the longest mating combination. People will play by principle and defend or attack in a logical, but less than perfectly efficient manner. I submit that if I set up a complicated beginning position and gave it to a GM vs a strong computer and had someone randomly assign sides, that I could tell you with 100% certainty which player had each side with only the game score and an endgame tablebase.
Anyone who passes up a free checkmate on #2 is clearly not a computer. It is also clearly not an intelligent person. I
Q v R is a known pattern, but that does not mean it is a rote series of moves. I can win the ending, but a compute will put up a damn strong defense because it will push the loss out as far as possible. If the human makes an inaccuracy, they can easily go past the 50 move draw limit. Even Grandmasters have failed.
I can point you to players like IM Jeremy Silman who routinely points out that a move is a "computer move" in his books. Go play a computer in a Q v R endgame with you up the Queen. It will outplay any Grandmaster. There are many open positions where a computer will play moves that a GM would not even consider.
And who in the world would pass up fool's mate? It is a checkmate on the second move and I have no idea how this is some type of proof of a computer program?
If you can internalize calculating every possible move several plies deep, then you are right. But no human can, so you are wrong. My bet is you have never played more than a casual game of chess and don't understand how humans play chess or how computers do. They are two entirely different phenomenon.
Of course there are points where a human will coincide with a computer. In fact in most cases this will be true. But there are points in a game where there is a wide disparity.
A couple questions for you: Do you play chess? Have you played in a tournament? A nationally rated tournament? Played against computers at top level? Written an algorithm for computer chess? I've done all the above and though I admit I am not a master of chess, I understand how one determines someone is cheating. You cannot catch 100% of cheaters, but some situations are so absurd that you can say with 99.999% certainty that someone is cheating. Momentary periods of lucidity are not cheating. Series of moves from an amateur player that are not only brilliant but computer like are clear cheating.
Depends on your venue. In the United States, chess runs a bit more lean and mean. A state tournament I participated in had less that one director observing per section. There actually have been cases of collusion to cheat using electronic devices and "observers". All it takes is an observer whispering the moves in a microphone to someone on the other end, and then signals back to the player. You'd only need to do it in critical position. Two or three key moves in a game would be enough to tip the balance in many cases.
It is mathematically proven to be unsolveable within finite time, as the problem is in class NP.
No. No it is not. I am not sure where you got this, but chess is easily solvable in finite time. It is a simple tree search but incredibly massive. My desktop, given enough time and a massive increase in memory, could solve chess. Granted the memory would take up a planet the size of Saturn and the time would run into issues with the heat death of the universe, but this is much different than being "unsolvable within finite time".
I play chess at the tournament level, and have played computer chess since the early 80's when the things were little more than jokes.
You simply cannot internalize the chess computer's algorithms. Believe it or not computers suck at chess and positional understanding. I did an experiment where I played a series of games against Fritz. I gave myself infinite time, sometimes taking 30-40 minutes per moves. I am not a titled player, but am above average for a tournament player. I did very well against Fritz when I had time to make sure my calculations were solid and found many times that Fritz really misevaluated the position. In one case, it insisted that it was up by 1.5 pawns but after 6 or 7 normal humans moves that a "C" player would have found, Fritz realized it was actually slightly worse.
Put a computer in a closed position and it flounders. The computer does not understand a position, it simply has a fairly decent evaluation engine combined with the ability to see every stinking possibility. It does not get tired. It does not have the emotional baggage that sometimes makes chess mistakes.
The computers understanding (evaluation) of a position is perhaps FIDE (ELO) 2000. It's calculation ability is perhaps FIDE 4000. Combine the two, and you get a "person" capable of FIDE 3000 chess. Give a grandmaster more time, and you tip the balance to the positional understanding rather than the raw calculation speed.
So now you get to the point about "internalizing" the chess moves is simply not possible. Put a computer in a complex Queen vs Rook ending, and you will see the computer play moves that a human just would never do. It isn't based on a few principles and understanding them. It is based on a 12 eyed monster seeing every stinking move possible 12-14 plies deep. Computers revolutionized our understanding of this endgame and many more.
Beyond the endgame, there are many points in a chess game where you can tell a computer made a move. First, the move objectively works, but does not fit any type of theme, or normal principle of the game. It isn't simply a good or even great move, it isn't that it just doesn't make sense immediately but rather it doesn't fit any framework of human understanding.
So, yes, I am convinced that you can pick up on cheating based upon a series of moves given the right circumstances.
And no, this is nothing new. Cheating has gone on in chess for decades. Computers have just made it easier for the non-elite to cheat.
Slashdot Mirror
Clinging to a life with zero quality? Aren't you being a bit dramatic about Aaron? Seriously? Or are you mistaking my argument for saying that suicide is NEVER good? If so, you need to learn about context.
Oh dear God, are you serious? Suicide is bravery? I will echo the AC's sentiment when I say that you and the mod who voted you up should seek professional help.
Yup. Basically you have a child who was socialized to believe that as long as he felt he was right, his actions are justified and would not carry consequences. Even if he is morally right with his belief that this information SHOULD be free (not saying he is), he either has to comply with the laws or be willing to suffer the consequences to sand up for his beliefs.
Aaron is not a hero. Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out.
Why is that? Right now, North Korea is a nice bargaining chip for China. The US doesn't want a direct conflict with China so cannot directly attack North Korea. When the time is right, China will reign in North Korea (for a time) in exchange for some concessions from the US. It is a poker game with an element of risk, but North Korea is a high face card in China's hand.
Apparently you missed his username.
1) What you say is not true. Anonymous targets folks they disagree with.
2) One can define "actively messing with other people" however they want. A jihadist would use the exact same term to describe what they do.
2) Even if what you said were entirely true, what you are describing is "vigilantism". In the movies this is great. In the real world you end up with a might makes right society. You and the jihadist are in complete agreement that this is acceptable.
This could be worse than Y2K!
Scratch part about native language as I misread part of the post.
King Bhumibol Adulyade enjoys licking my toes.
Where did you get that I said that finite time has anything to do with NP? I simply corrected his assertion that the game could not be solved in finite time. I even said that the time solved with today's technology would be greater than the lifespan of the universe but finite. So, not sure why you are taking issue with my post.
If you haven't already, try out chesstempo.com. This sounds like it would fit well with your review of tactics. You are not penalized for taking your time but rather on whether you calculate correctly or not. I enjoy the site a lot.
I am definitely not a strong player by any stretch and am getting into chess again after a long hiatus (kids are finally old enough and interested enough). I'll let you know how it goes over the next year or so :)
Well, if you think it was me, you are wrong. But the AC is quite correct. Your "fools mate" test is idiotic, and there is no way that you are a strong chess players and likely not a chess player at all. I don't log off to make insults.
The computer is there to be abused :) I am very interested in the process of improving at chess and what causes people to plateau. So, I've taken to a number of strategies to evaluate effectiveness. Ultimately, to improve, I found that one must truly understand what one does not understand. This sounds superficial or even tautological, but it isn't. Too often players chalk losses up to a "random blunder" or not having memorized an opening enough. The reality is that our minds have a very small set of "rules" we use to select moves.
During these sessions I actually wrote down my candidate moves for each move, and then wrote a rationale for why I chose the move. Often, one can make the right move for the wrong reasons and the other way around as well. By understanding thinking patterns, i can later identify mistakes and enlist stronger players in reviewing my games. It is effective, but very very very time consuming and energy consuming.
Fortunately, the computer is a patient partner. The downside is it cannot offer truly insightful commentary to help a human player. For that you need a mentor, or at the minimum a peer to assist.
Everyone gets accused of cheating at chess. It is a sour grapes kind of thing.
-- MyLongNickName
Is programming not limited by the hardware on which it resides?
As a P.S., the longest forced win for the superior side in Q v R is 30 moves. So, no, this is not trivial.
Watch a computer play the defending side. It will always pick the move that requires the longest mating combination. People will play by principle and defend or attack in a logical, but less than perfectly efficient manner. I submit that if I set up a complicated beginning position and gave it to a GM vs a strong computer and had someone randomly assign sides, that I could tell you with 100% certainty which player had each side with only the game score and an endgame tablebase.
Anyone who passes up a free checkmate on #2 is clearly not a computer. It is also clearly not an intelligent person. I
Q v R is a known pattern, but that does not mean it is a rote series of moves. I can win the ending, but a compute will put up a damn strong defense because it will push the loss out as far as possible. If the human makes an inaccuracy, they can easily go past the 50 move draw limit. Even Grandmasters have failed.
I can point you to players like IM Jeremy Silman who routinely points out that a move is a "computer move" in his books. Go play a computer in a Q v R endgame with you up the Queen. It will outplay any Grandmaster. There are many open positions where a computer will play moves that a GM would not even consider.
And who in the world would pass up fool's mate? It is a checkmate on the second move and I have no idea how this is some type of proof of a computer program?
If you can internalize calculating every possible move several plies deep, then you are right. But no human can, so you are wrong. My bet is you have never played more than a casual game of chess and don't understand how humans play chess or how computers do. They are two entirely different phenomenon.
Did you actually read my response?
Of course there are points where a human will coincide with a computer. In fact in most cases this will be true. But there are points in a game where there is a wide disparity.
A couple questions for you: Do you play chess? Have you played in a tournament? A nationally rated tournament? Played against computers at top level? Written an algorithm for computer chess? I've done all the above and though I admit I am not a master of chess, I understand how one determines someone is cheating. You cannot catch 100% of cheaters, but some situations are so absurd that you can say with 99.999% certainty that someone is cheating. Momentary periods of lucidity are not cheating. Series of moves from an amateur player that are not only brilliant but computer like are clear cheating.
Depends on your venue. In the United States, chess runs a bit more lean and mean. A state tournament I participated in had less that one director observing per section. There actually have been cases of collusion to cheat using electronic devices and "observers". All it takes is an observer whispering the moves in a microphone to someone on the other end, and then signals back to the player. You'd only need to do it in critical position. Two or three key moves in a game would be enough to tip the balance in many cases.
It is mathematically proven to be unsolveable within finite time, as the problem is in class NP.
No. No it is not. I am not sure where you got this, but chess is easily solvable in finite time. It is a simple tree search but incredibly massive. My desktop, given enough time and a massive increase in memory, could solve chess. Granted the memory would take up a planet the size of Saturn and the time would run into issues with the heat death of the universe, but this is much different than being "unsolvable within finite time".
I play chess at the tournament level, and have played computer chess since the early 80's when the things were little more than jokes.
You simply cannot internalize the chess computer's algorithms. Believe it or not computers suck at chess and positional understanding. I did an experiment where I played a series of games against Fritz. I gave myself infinite time, sometimes taking 30-40 minutes per moves. I am not a titled player, but am above average for a tournament player. I did very well against Fritz when I had time to make sure my calculations were solid and found many times that Fritz really misevaluated the position. In one case, it insisted that it was up by 1.5 pawns but after 6 or 7 normal humans moves that a "C" player would have found, Fritz realized it was actually slightly worse.
Put a computer in a closed position and it flounders. The computer does not understand a position, it simply has a fairly decent evaluation engine combined with the ability to see every stinking possibility. It does not get tired. It does not have the emotional baggage that sometimes makes chess mistakes.
The computers understanding (evaluation) of a position is perhaps FIDE (ELO) 2000. It's calculation ability is perhaps FIDE 4000. Combine the two, and you get a "person" capable of FIDE 3000 chess. Give a grandmaster more time, and you tip the balance to the positional understanding rather than the raw calculation speed.
So now you get to the point about "internalizing" the chess moves is simply not possible. Put a computer in a complex Queen vs Rook ending, and you will see the computer play moves that a human just would never do. It isn't based on a few principles and understanding them. It is based on a 12 eyed monster seeing every stinking move possible 12-14 plies deep. Computers revolutionized our understanding of this endgame and many more.
Beyond the endgame, there are many points in a chess game where you can tell a computer made a move. First, the move objectively works, but does not fit any type of theme, or normal principle of the game. It isn't simply a good or even great move, it isn't that it just doesn't make sense immediately but rather it doesn't fit any framework of human understanding.
So, yes, I am convinced that you can pick up on cheating based upon a series of moves given the right circumstances.
And no, this is nothing new. Cheating has gone on in chess for decades. Computers have just made it easier for the non-elite to cheat.