Chess GREATNESS cannot be taught or learned.

Originally posted by cheater1
I took ALOT of time to write that article. Sure I come across as arrogant and conceited, but that's who I AM. I am not a nice person, both on this thing we call the world wide web, and in REAL LIFE.

But one thing I AM NOT is a troll or flamer. If I am to be silenced, then I think about 90% of the other users of this site should be too. I neither use FOUL la ...[text shortened]... ebate me if you will. I will WIN, but you may learn a thing or two about life in the process.

"You all spout your HATRED of me and then say I should be silenced for something as trivial as not liking what I write."

I don't hate you. And I, for one, never said that you should be silenced - Only that I might not read your posts going forward.

"I'll admit that I would clobber my own grandmother over the head with a two by four and take my inheritance early if I could get away with it."

OK, now maybe I DO hate you. 😉 (And please get some help.)

"I am an EXPERT debater. I dont lose arguments."

I'll debate that point. 😛

Originally posted by cheater1
REsponse to MAD ROOK. Yes, Mr. Mad Rook, I have read the 5th paragraph. As they stated, they were presented with positions that would not exist in real world situations, meaning ILLEGAL positions.

The fact is that they were NOT just presented with goofy, mixed up positions (which CAN occur in real life) but with positions such as having TWO kings. Posit ...[text shortened]... OF COURSE YOU WOULDNT!!!

I am trying to control my blood pressure...hold on.....1...2......3.

I guess I am to assume that you haven't read Chase and Simon's 1973 article titled "Perception in Chess", published in Cognitive Psychology, Volume 4, Number 1 (January 1973)?

If you had, then you would know that the "performance" of the master was in regard to his ability to RECALL positions, not his ability to make strong moves. If elite GMs universally had photographic memory, they would be able to recall ANY position, whether it be legal or illegal.

Originally posted by cheater1
I took ALOT of time to write that article. Sure I come across as arrogant and conceited, but that's who I AM. I am not a nice person, both on this thing we call the world wide web, and in REAL LIFE.

But one thing I AM NOT is a troll or flamer. If I am to be silenced, then I think about 90% of the other users of this site should be too. I neither use FOUL ...[text shortened]... e me if you will. I will WIN, but you may learn a thing or two about life in the process.

for a 'tough guy' you're awfully sensitive, spewing paragraph after paragraph about how people are being such meanies. well, we don't really care.

in fact, you come off as needy, hungry for attention and lacking self-esteem. you desperately need us to appreciate you, but it's impossible when you're totally unable to put forth anything but anecdotal misconceptions of a rank beginner.

you can't talk chess, you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag, and you can't talk chess programming. none of your claims check out. that's really not very bright trolling concept to take onto a chess forum filled with obsessive people hellbent on picking apart unsound positions.

you simply don't have what it takes.

Originally posted by cheater1
REsponse to MAD ROOK. Yes, Mr. Mad Rook, I have read the 5th paragraph. As they stated, they were presented with positions that would not exist in real world situations, meaning ILLEGAL positions.

The fact is that they were NOT just presented with goofy, mixed up positions (which CAN occur in real life) but with positions such as having TWO kings. Posit ...[text shortened]... OF COURSE YOU WOULDNT!!!

I am trying to control my blood pressure...hold on.....1...2......3.

I have read an article in Scientific American (well it was the German version) about this two years ago. When I recall correctly, the positions where GM's performed not much better than average players, were with the normal set of pieces, but rather randomly distributed over the board. No such thing as 11 rooks or so.

To get an idea, just have a look at some games of 1000-rated players, which are somewhere in the middlegame. They often look very similar to the random positions that where analysed in the article mentioned before, and usually need more time to evaluate than games of say 2000+ players, which usually look much more familiar (to me).

Greatness may not be taught, but without being taught and hard work, greatness can't be achieved.

Great talent without exposure to the right conditions and hard work equals potential not greatness.

WORMWOOD, I'm afraid you fit the definition of a flamer/stalker quite well. You follow me around, appearing where ever I am, with nothing to add other than how much you despise me. Please either LEGITIMATELY contribute to my posts or post NOTHING at all. Don't ruin it for everyone.

MAD ROOK, once again you make my point for me. I agree completely with you. "the "performance" of the master was in regard to his ability to RECALL positions, not his ability to make strong moves", is what you said. I AGREE. I AGREE. YES. YES. That is what I said in the first place. THAT IS IS IS IS what photographic memory is. Now, here is where your demonstrate your total LACK of LOGIC:

You said that, "If elite GMs universally had photographic memory, they would be able to recall ANY position, whether it be legal or illegal." In order for photographic memory to take place, ONE MUST HAVE SEEN THE POSITION BEFORE in order to "take a picture of it" and add it to their memory. How the $%&^$^%#$ can ANYONE see a position if it NEVER EXISTED in the first place? Do GMS routinely play with 14 knights? Did Fischer practice with 19 pieces and 3 kings? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! Does TIger Woods use a tree limb to practice his drives? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Breathe in....breathe out.....1......2......3......

Originally posted by gambit05
I have read an article in Scientific American (well it was the German version) about this two years ago. When I recall correctly, the positions where GM's performed not much better than average players, were with the normal set of pieces, but rather randomly distributed over the board. No such thing as 11 rooks or so.

I didn't read the Scientific American article, but based on the papers I've read (as in my previous post), yes, you're correct. The random positions were not outrageous situations like 11 rooks and other illegal positions. (But again, this illegal position issue isn't even important to the photographic memory issue.) This just shows that the OP has no idea what he's talking about on this issue.

Originally posted by cheater1
MAD ROOK, once again you make my point for me. I agree completely with you. "the "performance" of the master was in regard to his ability to RECALL positions, not his ability to make strong moves", is what you said. I AGREE. I AGREE. YES. YES. That is what I said in the first place. THAT IS IS IS IS what photographic memory is. Now, here is where your demonstr ...[text shortened]... ice his drives? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Breathe in....breathe out.....1......2......3......[/b]

OK, I'll spell it out for you. I'll go REALLY slowly, OK? I'll even let you say the words out loud as you read them.

The test that was referenced was a "5 second" recall test. A position would be shown to the test subject for 5 seconds, then the subject would try to recall the position as best he could. The test results showed that in normal positions (positions commonly seen in normal games), the master had much better recall than weaker players. However, in random positions, the master's recall was not much better than the weaker players' recall.

So the master did previously see the positions for 5 seconds. If he truly had a photographic memory, his recall of these random positions would have been the same as the normal positions.

You're either completely incapable of any logical thinking, or you haven't done any reading on the subjects you discuss and are just making it up as you go. (I might vote for both being the case.) Either way, I'm done with you. You're a hopeless case, imho.

Originally posted by cheater1
WORMWOOD, I'm afraid you fit the definition of a flamer/stalker quite well. You follow me around, appearing where ever I am, with nothing to add other than how much you despise me. Please either LEGITIMATELY contribute to my posts or post NOTHING at all. Don't ruin it for everyone.

MAD ROOK, once again you make my point for me. I agree completely with yo ...[text shortened]... e his drives? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Breathe in....breathe out.....1......2......3......

ah, more 'hurt boy' act. you sure are one tough misanthrope of an a-hole.

I've seen you troll chess.com with these mindless ramblings, baiting people to respond. you never really say anything, never even engage in a real argument, but the incessant drivel continues day in day out regardless. there usually was at least 5 threads started by you, absolutely void of any content. then you got banned for it of course, and now you're here.

now, with the photographic memory. -it's obvious you either don't know what it means, OR your feigning staggering ignorance just to draw out reaction. I think the latter is true.

I don't care what Cheetah tries to TEACH us, but here is the article I have mentioned before:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind

Although unfortunately, it is without Figures (the interesting ones would be the chess diagrams), it is still an interesting read.

Originally posted by gambit05
I don't care what Cheetah tries to TEACH us, but here is the article I have mentioned before:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind

Although unfortunately, it is without Figures (the interesting ones would be the chess diagrams), it is still an interesting read.

Thanks for the link. Actually, I think I downloaded it when it first came out, and I think I even have the diagrams archived somewhere on my PC. (But finding them is another matter...)

Edit - Ah, finally located the Sci Amer figures on my PC.

Here's the link to a pdf of the Simon and Chase article (click on the acrobat file link near the top of the page):

http://diva.library.cmu.edu/webapp/simon/item.jsp?q=/box00066/fld05044/bdl0001/doc0001/

I find this all quite strange. While cheater_1 is talking obvious nonsense - I really really don´t see the problem with it. He´s in some fantasy about being a great cheat or sage about chess. He is after attention. If he wants lots of attention then that´s fine by me - it doesn´t affect me at all. It´s kind of diverting reading this stuff and having a laugh.

But really, these are some of the most posted in threads, if you want to discourage an attention seeker giving them lots of attention is just not going to work.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I find this all quite strange. While cheater_1 is talking obvious nonsense - I really really don´t see the problem with it. He´s in some fantasy about being a great cheat or sage about chess. He is after attention. If he wants lots of attention then that´s fine by me - it doesn´t affect me at all. It´s kind of diverting reading this stuff and having ...[text shortened]... want to discourage an attention seeker giving them lots of attention is just not going to work.

It is just for the fun of it. Here is one bit he has posted on chess.com:

"I am here to amuse MYSELF. You all are bit players in my puppet show. It has NOTHING to do with you all. I am playing GOD."

Just for the entertainment, it is funny to see more of his "copy-paste show".

Seen this somewhere before. It was tripe then and it is tripe now.

Originally posted by cheater1
Now is the time for my second SCHOLARLY post on chess.

Chess GREATNESS cannot be taught or learned, you either are born with it or not. Now, for clarity, let me define “greatness” as the chess ELITE. I’m not talking about some 2300 ranked player (there is one on every street corner). I’m not talking about some 2500 GM (they are a dime a dozen). I’m TALKI ...[text shortened]... “Who is your favorite player?” Is everyone here 12 years old?

SUBSTANCE, people, SUBSTANCE.

So what are you trying to say? I mean what is your point? Most of us that play on here including the top guys are well aware that we will never be Super GM's.

We simply play for the love of the game, the mental workout , the thrill of the battle of wills, the hope that we can perhaps emulate one of our heros, maybe even pull off a dazzling combination or two.

But obviously as somebody who uses artificial intelligence to assist in his move selection you really wouldn't have a clue what i'm talking about!!