Weyerstrass

Originally posted by heinzkat
Start a new topic on this completely different subject, please. This is a topic about Weyerstrass vs. Nowakowski and ICCF.

I think threads can take any angle they like as long as the subject stays on chess. 😛

This thread with the same title and subject posted in August 2007 (by the same guy!!)
seems more friendly.

Thread 74758

Originally posted by greenpawn34
(by the same guy!!)

He must be a fan, obsessed, or both.

Originally posted by Quiet Interlude
I don't think it is possible to tell what's going on with ICCF CC any more. The current British CC championship is a case in point.

http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=19551

In this list you will see a few players with current or lapsed ECF grades.

One of the highest rated players with an CCIM title who has never had an OTB oards cluttered with posts about the merits of various engines and which one you [b]need[/b]

This is very close to the truth. The games being played now at the highest level, are
being played in a manner to antagonize the usefulness of engines. It is, and has
been, a very successful campaign for many.

First, you would need to understand the foulacy of engine analysis, when they become
weak, what types of moves weaken them, and perhaps the most illustrious point of
all, there allocation of value towards king safety, material, and space. 🙂

Certain positions, openings, and defenses, are often strived for. Engines begin losing
there flare against long pawn chains, why is this? Its difficult for the engine to
associate the value of the pawns; the pawns value is higher while connected, it
doesn't understand how this value changes based on minor piece proximity. It has
difficulty with large horizons, i.e where human theory becomes more important than
pattern recog. The analysis of the position, will always be better suited to humans,
whereas the analysis of the available tactics, will always be better suited to the
machine.

Perhaps the most important and valuable information, is understanding that the
machine, when absent a tactical shot; will move based on each pieces material value,
and how to elevate its value with a single move. It begins its candidate search,
which we will not get into, but we can understand from this basic premise, that the
machines weakness is more evident in positions in which long term strategical factors
are more available.

Take the given position for example:

Reveal Hidden Content

Virtually any engine you'll find, will grade this position, with near equality.
However, a human might not. Do you understand why? What may elevate the
value of the position for one side or another?

I like white.

The pawn structures for both parties is strong, white's being slightly weaker structurally
although it controls better space, better position, and more defensible for rooks.


Take note here, that in an ending the 2nd rank available to the white king, could make
all the difference in the world, as white will probably have to play Kg2 at some point.
Black's pawns have afforded less "time" this is a slight weakness. All thing here, seem
near equal, but white has just enough, with the initiative, to carry out some dastardly
plans. Of course, white still afford the bishop pair. However this is not the most
important part.

The space the pawns afford, may have elevated the value of the rooks

See?

Take note, that this analysis is opinionated. The truth is, the position is very deep,
and for the most part widely unknown. This is where humans have our strength,
we can make differing considerations on the board, rather than just piece value and
small spacial considerations. If we simply analyze the position based on candidate
moves, we're playing into the engines cave. This is why, we learn the patterns first,
and then through theory, and continuous practice, we begin to understand nuances
which engines are not equipped to fathom.
(Or maybe replace the word "understand" with the word "respect"...)


-GIN

Ah, Nowa, that explains your improvement, because the engines got it all wrong 😛

Originally posted by Nowakowski
If we simply analyze the position based on candidate
moves, we're playing into the engines cave. This is why, we learn the patterns first,
and then through theory, and continuous practice, we begin to understand nuances
which engines are not equipped to fathom.
(Or maybe replace the word "understand" with the word "respect"...)


-GIN[/b]

This is the best post I have read since I started playing here. Thank you!

Paul

The engines is always more tactical then human, and they have limited potentiel, they cannot more then x moves further, If they could see everything, they could calculate an advantage, I am certain this is a formula for it, , but they do not. they have limit, and they calculs, sometimes, lack an element, which make them wrong.

Thanks for the post Nowa.

Originally posted by Nowakowski
This is very close to the truth. The games being played now at the highest level, are
being played in a manner to antagonize the usefulness of engines. It is, and has
been, a very successful campaign for many.

First, you would need to understand the foulacy of engine analysis, when they become
weak, what types of moves weaken them, and perhaps t ...[text shortened]... hom.
(Or maybe replace the word "understand" with the word "respect"...)


-GIN

Top 1 Match: 438/673 (65,1% )
Top 2 Match: 559/673 (83,1% )
Top 3 Match: 612/673 (91,0% )

Off-topic 😠

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Top 1 Match: 438/673 (65,1% )
Top 2 Match: 559/673 (83,1% )
Top 3 Match: 612/673 (91,0% )

What does this mean? And I know what it is.

Let me tell you this. You are very unexperienced to be playing with this by the way.

Originally posted by Mariska Angela
You are very unexperienced to be playing with this by the way.

What does this mean?

Originally posted by Fat Lady
What does this mean?

It's like a maths exam where you get some of the theorems right the rest is just crap and you don't have a clue about the definitions.

Originally posted by Mariska Angela
It's like a maths exam where you get some of the theorems right the rest is just crap and you don't have a clue about the definitions.

all of the 'definitions' have been gone through forwards, backwards and sideways many dozens of times at length during the past years.

The only question a statistician would ask is: From which samples did you get the 673?