Ram's ARGUMENT to Cheater_1

Originally posted by tamuzi
Mozart was composing at 3. That is natural talent, not thousands of hours.

Game over.

I composed a song at 1½ years. but maybe mozart was a late bloomer?

Is it not the spirit of excellence,the struggle to achieve this that has always driven the most ambitious of human being? It is this competitiveness which has allowed humans to excel again and again in almost every field of human activity,the feeling that one more drive,one more push and there will be a higher standard and a better result as a consequence.The belief that there is indeed,always room for improvement. It is considered by some that these emotions and needs are nearer to the surface or considered more significant by more men than woman,but nobody could use this as an overall blanket guide,as many women excel in what they do,far better than any man in the same chosen field. It essentially comes down to how deeply the interest goes,and how important the chosen field of interest is to the individuals concerned,rather than any fundemental differences in the thinking processes of men and women---🙂

Originally posted by RECUVIC
Is it not the spirit of excellence,the struggle to achieve this that has always driven the most ambitious of human being? It is this competitiveness which has allowed humans to excel again and again in almost every field of human activity,the feeling that one more drive,one more push and there will be a higher standard and a better result as a consequence.Th ...[text shortened]... oncerned,rather than any fundemental differences in the thinking processes of men and women---🙂

You make good points! Someone in another post said that the difference between a piano teacher and a concert pianist is the amount of practice. I have heard this said by a couple of my sisters in speaking of me. Not only is this an untrue statement, it is rather unkind. I could have practiced ten hours a day under one of the greatest piano teachers of all time....Haydn...but it still would not make me into a concert pianist. I have personally known excellent performers who struggled with sight-reading. Some people have been able to improvise or "play by ear"....things I cannot do. We are all so different. I have known excellent pianists who were not good piano teachers. I think I do alright in this capacity. I also can sight-read just as though I was reading a book. This makes me a good accompaniest for church or singing groups. But.....I could never be a concert pianist.....NEVER. One can always improve, however. And this is what I have done in playing chess online.

Improvement is the target we set for ourselves in our search for excellence,and therefore only by understanding at which areas we should be targeting this attempt to improve, may we have any realistic hope of achieving this.This involves understanding where our greatest weaknesses are and we cannot hope to know this without a thorough investigation to ensure the correct answers become available. It is for this reason that we often employ the services of other people in our chosen field of interest whom we know have already sutpassed our own knowledge,and are therefore equipped to pass this information on to others.Improvement in chess play for most players is essentially the exchange of information not previously known or understood,and how to make the best possible use of this information.----------😉

Originally posted by RECUVIC
Improvement is the target we set for ourselves in our search for excellence,and therefore only by understanding at which areas we should be targeting this attempt to improve, may we have any realistic hope of achieving this.This involves understanding where our greatest weaknesses are and we cannot hope to know this without a thorough investigation to ensure ...[text shortened]... ously known or understood,and how to make the best possible use of this information.----------😉

I could have used a chess teacher to advantage, I think. My mom just taught me the rudiments when I was very young. I have had to learn by trial and error....mostly error...and I am a very slow learner. Of course there would be years in between chess games with someone who had no more knowledge than I did. So being online for nearly two years has been the real beginning for me. Thanks for your insight, RECUVIC. I am enjoying conversing with you.

You are more than welcome! I wish you well in all you do!whether you do it well or not ,is not critically important,that you do it atal is?-------😀

Hello RAM, sorry about my BELATED reply. That was quite the in depth article. I loved it. Thank you for having civilty, a trait that nearly no one else has exhibited at this site.

After reading that article, one thing stands out: The MAJORITY of cases were sports related or instances that involved MUSCLE MEMORY or genetics: typing, golf, marathon runners, athletes of all sorts, musicians. Yes, chess was talked about, but it was talked about in different terms. Their conclusion was that the AGE at which the person began chess was the prime factor in how advanced they became. Much like learning a language NEEDS to be done in the first 7 years otherwise the child WILL NEVER learn to speak, the brain loses that capacity to learn language. Of course practice plays a HUGE part, but it is NOT the main ingredient by their or my standards.

Let's talk FACTS for a moment. A chess program is not smart, right? Good. Your version of RYBKA doesn't automatically play games with itself to GET BETTER and practice its openings all day long, right? Good. I'm glad we agree. Then WHY OH WHY is your computer chess program playing at 2800+ levels? How can this be? No practice--no brain--what sort of sorcery is this? Well, ILL TELL YA. It draws from a HUGE database of moves and positions that IT HAS SEEN BEFORE. It was PROGRAMMED. Now it all becomes clear. Now I have PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that practice IS NOT required to be a chess ELITE, but what is, is some "database" of moves/positions. Some "snapshot" of moves. The young child who takes up chess at 5 years old, possesses eidetic memory, and practices chess under the tutelage of a GM, will more than likely rise to the ELITE.

So RAM, granted, practice is an INGREDIENT, much as sugar is an ingredient, necessary to get the end result, but not the MAIN ingredient. You know how many MILLIONS of people devote HOURS upon HOURS to chess everyday? Why the heck are there only 30 people in the WORLD 2700+? Are they they only ones who practice alot? GIMME A BREAK. If endless hours of chess practice were ALL it took to be elite, you'd have MILLIONS of 2900+ people. FACT.

Originally posted by cheater1
Hello RAM, sorry about my BELATED reply. That was quite the in depth article. I loved it. Thank you for having civilty, a trait that nearly no one else has exhibited at this site.

After reading that article, one thing stands out: The MAJORITY of cases were sports related or instances that involved MUSCLE MEMORY or genetics: typing, golf, marathon runners ...[text shortened]... chess practice were ALL it took to be elite, you'd have MILLIONS of 2900+ people. FACT.

Are you seriously saying it's impossible to learn a language after the age of seven? Rubbish.

Computers work on algorithims that evaluate a position and give it a numerical value, not on databases(although they do use an opening book and endgame table base).

Numerous studies have concluded that deliberate practice is the main factor in chess excellence in humans(remember, a computer is not a human.)

Of course practice is not the only factor but neither is memory, both are important.

You, cheater1, have proven nothing.
Have a nice day.

Originally posted by cheater1
Let's talk FACTS for a moment. A chess program is not smart, right? Good. Your version of RYBKA doesn't automatically play games with itself to GET BETTER and practice its openings all day long, right? Good. I'm glad we agree. Then WHY OH WHY is your computer chess program playing at 2800+ levels? How can this be? No practice--no brain--what sort of sorcery ...[text shortened]... raws from a HUGE database of moves and positions that IT HAS SEEN BEFORE. It was PROGRAMMED.

As pointed out elsewhere, engines use databases through the opening and tablebases once the horizon of possibilities includes six or fewer pieces. In between, where most games are won or lost, engines rely upon brute force calculation guided by other algorithms, such as futility searches, null move pruning, etc.

They are programmed. You have that correct. But, they are not programmed in the manner you describe.

The human brain, on the other hand, accommodates hundreds or even thousands of patterns learned through drill and other forms of practice. Through such pattern recognition, humans develop intuition.

See the video that Tryfon Gavriel references in the other thread. It is well worth the 46 minutes or so that it runs for you to get a brief primer on pattern recognition, chunking, and other related aspects of memory and intelligence.

JONROTHWELL, you sir, are UNEDUCATED. The critical time to learn a language is COMMON KNOWLEDGE, or so I thought.

Research it. I WONT HOLD YOUR HAND, here are a few of millions of COMMON KNOWLEDGE quotes,

"Unless they are exposed to language in the early years of life, humans lose much of their innate ability to learn a language, and especially its grammatical system."

" A critical period of language acquisition ends around the age of 12 years, if no language is learned before then it could never be learned in a normal and fully functional sense."

"Evidence supporting this comes from feral children who failed to develop language after being deprived of early linguistic input."

You think I like slapping you all upside the head with FACTS. I DONT. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK!!!!!!!

Originally posted by cheater1
JONROTHWELL, you sir, are UNEDUCATED. The critical time to learn a language is COMMON KNOWLEDGE, or so I thought.

Research it. I WONT HOLD YOUR HAND, here are a few of millions of COMMON KNOWLEDGE quotes,

"Unless they are exposed to language in the early years of life, humans lose much of their innate ability to learn a language, and especially its g I like slapping you all upside the head with FACTS. I DONT. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK!!!!!!!

There is no need to be aggressive Cheater1, you have stated elsewhere that you want good arguments, as in debate, this is merely what I was doing.

You say 'The critical time to learn a language is common knowledge.'
This sentence is nonsensical.

I am willing to concede the point that early stimulus in a subject, be it chess or languages helps the speed and mastery of that subject in the childs development. However, languages can be learned after the age of twelve.

If you quote sources it would be helpful to post a reference to them.

You seem to mistake facts for your own subjective opinion.
This, by the way, is corresponding not speaking. You should think before you write.
All the best.

Originally posted by cheater1
Let's talk FACTS for a moment. A chess program is not smart, right? Good. Your version of RYBKA doesn't automatically play games with itself to GET BETTER and practice its openings all day long, right? Good. I'm glad we agree. Then WHY OH WHY is your computer chess program playing at 2800+ levels? How can this be? No practice--no brain--what sort of sorcery ...[text shortened]... draws from a HUGE database of moves and positions that IT HAS SEEN BEFORE. It was PROGRAMMED.

No, that's wrong. The computer's main strength is calculating ability. They usually use databases for the opening [first 10-20 moves] - and this is just to give them a playable middlegame.

If you had really programmed engines of your own, and they played at a high level, you would know this.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, that's wrong. The computer's main strength is calculating ability. They usually use databases for the opening [first 10-20 moves] - and this is just to give them a playable middlegame.

If you had really programmed engines of your own, and they played at a high level, you would know this.

Also without calculation ability very important factor is that computer is always even-tempered, it has no emotions and computer plays all games in the same highest level which can`t be said about humans.

First off, according to the Original Post, the claim was made that practice is the main factor to Excel at chess. I AM NOT disputing that. Diligent study and practice of the game has created many a GM. I'm talking about the ELITE. The top .00000001%. I'm talking your 2700+ players.

I CHALLENGE anyone to walk up to Mr. Nigel Short and tell him that he needs to practice more. He's a "paltry" 2663. No, he's at or near his ceiling. More practice and study of the game will NOT bring up to the 2700 mark. If it would, hmmmmm, then just maybe he would hit the books a bit more.

Just hit a few more balls at the driving range and you too can be the next TIGER WOODS. Nope.

The article that RAM posted came to the conclusion that the earlier one begins chess, the better chance of one becoming elite. I tied that into the critical period of language acquisition.

Let me spell it out here. The human brain has an area that is only active until puberty, thereafter it SWITCHES OFF, never to be reactivated. Once Language is learned, for the rest of your life you can learn other languages at ANY age...12.....35......90. However, if NO first language is learned before that area switches off, then you are destined to NEVER learn ANY language.

Any adults here ever try to learn a second language later in life? I have. 4 years of German in college and I still cannot hold a conversation with a 4 year old German kid. The earlier you learn a language (and chess is a language of sorts) the better.

I still stand by my position that EIDETIC MEMORY is the PRIME requisite, coupled with early exposure and long hours of study and practice.

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php

Originally posted by cheater1
I still stand by my position that EIDETIC MEMORY is the PRIME requisite, coupled with early exposure and long hours of study and practice.

You stand there only by ignoring the clear refutations, well documented.

Switching from photographic memory (common term) to eidetic memory (technical term) does not counter the studies that have shown that, if anything, eidetic memory is a deficit in the acquisition of chess skill.