Chess GREATNESS cannot be taught or learned.

Originally posted by cheater1

I ALWAYS use the case of Josh Waitzkin as my whipping boy. Here is a kid who possessed every quality of being the next Bobby Fischer ( drawing a game at age 11 vs. Kasparov, won the U.S. Junior Chess championship 2 years in a row, defeating a titled MASTER at age 10, etc etc etc). But he never broke a PALTRY 2500 rating. WHY? Did he not study hard enough? ...[text shortened]... “Who is your favorite player?” Is everyone here 12 years old?

SUBSTANCE, people, SUBSTANCE.

I heard that he realised that girls went for martial artists and considered chess players as geeks.

He chose girls over chess.

Originally posted by cheater1
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.

Wow. Just Wow.

It's possible that you said that just for shock value and you don't really mean it. Or it's possible that you meant it.

If the former, you're just attention starved. Go hang out with people. If you have no friends and don't want a family, take your nieces and nephews to a circus or amusement park or ballgame. Just meet and deal with real live people. Enjoy life and enjoy the company of people. It beats the heck out of dying as an old bitter internet hermit.

If the latter, you're mentally ill. Go check into a mental hospital for the criminally insane or ask your psychiatrist for a sedative or anti-depressant or something.

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.

I agree with you. Even though he had a reputation from Chess.com, I wanted to give him a fair chance here. I've given him his chance, and he flunked with me. So I won't bother with him any more. But I don't want him silenced, as long as he doesn't violate the TOS. I just don't have to read his drivel any more (unless I'm in the mood for utter nonsense, of course.) 😵

What did Robert J. Fischer say was required to become a great player?

Originally posted by Mad Rook
But I don't want him silenced, as long as he doesn't violate the TOS. I just don't have to read his drivel any more (unless I'm in the mood for utter nonsense, of course.) 😵

Thread 109175 🙂

Cheater1: May an old lady who has studied this great game of chess for 72+ years ask a simple question? Why aren't you playing instead of talking?

CHEATER1, could you PLEASE send me a link to a project page, or source CODE for your amazing chess PROGRAM?

Thank YOU!

Why are we confusing Perfect memory with situation recognition?

There is great stress in chess to not memorize lines, but rather the ideas behind the lines. When elite chess players see a set-up (they will recognize it from seeing it/playing it often enough) but they will be able to pick up the game because they know the chess patterns that allow them to analyze at any point.

Photographic memory doesn't not come into play here, rather normal repetition memory that we all have.

I think you would have an easier time trying to argue that the greats are great because they understand and apply patterns much better than we patzers. Because honestly, chess is a closed system, the game is patterned and knowing these patterns is what makes one successful.

Originally posted by moteutsch
CHEATER1, could you PLEASE send me a link to a project page, or source CODE for your amazing chess PROGRAM?

Thank YOU!

I think this might be his chess engine:

http://www.hpmuseum.org/curta1.jpg

First off, DEEPTHOUGHT gets the brilliancy award for today. No sarcasm here, he is 100% correct: "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."

Believe it or not, I HATE attention. You all think I enjoy trying to pound logic and facts into your heads or copying and pasting PROOF of my facts? Well, I DONT. What I like is DEBATE. CIVIL Debate about chess.

The old saying that goes one bad apple spoils the bunch, is true here, and I'm NOT the bad apple.

I'll ask you all KINDLY, no sarcasm; I'll even say please, "Please, please, please, stay out of my topics if you cannot contribute anything of value. Please refrain from trying to bait me into attacking you. Please stop with the trolling, you are violating the RHP TOS. Please stop flaming me for the same reason. I WELCOME heated debate. Opinions are ok too, if it's a subject that is worth opining about. Please cite your sources where applicable."

Alot of hard work/research goes into my posts and once again, after about the 6th reply, it goes OFF TOPIC (another pet peeve of mine).

To ALE1552, I am played out. I havent got even half of your years into the game, but probably have more than 1000 times the amount of games under my belt than you..that wears a person out. Just like the great Bobby Fischer, I grew BORED with chess. I took up cheating to keep the spark alive, but that too grew boring. Now, all I do is talk about chess. That is my long-winded answer to your question.

Finally, before I leave you all for several days (I can only take so much), here is an interesting read:

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/297793

Notice that I post sources that MAY not directly agree with my position. I am anything but one sided. I will entertain ANY evidence that suggests the contrary; however, as I illustrated, it is TOTALLY irrelevant to suggest that a GM remembers at an average level when confronted with non traditional or illegal or jumbled positions. OF COURSE they dont remember any better than you or I. Would you expect Tiger Woods to play any better than you or I if he was forced to play golf underwater?

The point is that there is some debate as to whether Eidetic memory exists or not, what there is NO DEBATE about is that there is more proof that it exists than there is proof that it doesnt exist.

Please read the link.

Please, please, please, stay out of my topics if you cannot contribute anything of value

OK

"Bored and Burned out". What a tragedy for one so young. I hope you find something to give you INTEREST, ZEST, and JOY. In my nearly 78 years of living, life might have had its ups and downs, but "boredom" is not in my vocabulary.

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.

Hi there

FWIW I think you are partly right (in a very qualified way). For example Carlsen has a photographic memory. There was lecture given about "The rise of Carlsen" a the recent Gibraltar tournament, and this came out about him in the lecture. Also he was incredibly lazy for what kasparov expected which was to spend hours analysing these games and get back to him. He didn't, and I think flunked out of the Kasparov soviet school as a result. Kasparov asked him apparently to name his favourite Alekhine games - he didn't know any, but he got back to Kasparov after quickly memorising a lot of them, and then gave some interesting picks.

Edit: here is an interesting chessbase article about him which also implies something about his photographic memory:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1447

What you said here though is a bit suspect:

"Computers are better than humans is that they draw NOT from knowledge, but from a massive database of moves/positions. That is how photographic memory works, like a computer….a database. "

A computer relies on a quality opening book or even a "cooked book" to get a decent opening. Brute force isn't as useful in the opening. Also in the endgames, they need to ideally use tablebases. There are specialist opening books like the "Perfect" series which apparently are also tailored for engines to guide towards sharper positions.

If a Super-GM has a very good memory or appraching a photographic memory, it means far less effort expended learning tonnes of games, etc. But the Super-GM also is a great calculator of variations, has brilliant positional play, endgame technique, etc. A near photographic memory is just a handy thing to have for chess to keep up to date.