electric method said:
How can I recognize a move as so good yet not play it? You show your extraordinary ignorance of chess here. There is no need to play it. None. It is overkill. Black has a completely won position. Qf3 is an escalation and a risk that is just not needed. If black plays this and misses just one part of the line he leaves his position in tatters and goes from completely winning to losing at worst, allows the opportunity for white to draw at best. Again, it is an unneccesary move. Only a computer, which thinks tactically, and has perfect tactical vision would escalate the position like this. It is best kept in reserve as a threat... black keeping that pressure with the threat of Qf3 is the choice a human would make because of the position on the board. This demonstrates the huge difference between how a human thinks and a computer thinks.
Btw, I don't know what it would take to convice you. You have no understanding of chess, period. I have repeatedly shown you lines, the logic and reasoning behind how humans approach things and computers. And because you do not understand chess at this level cannot see the forest for the trees. The evidence is right in front of you but, because you are blind, cannot even recognize it for what it is. I am completely convinced you are arguing just to argue a point you have absolutely zero knowledge of. Actually, that is painfully obvious. I gave you the analysis of a position and you couldn't even fill in the blanks. Even a 1600 level player would have been able to do what I asked you to do. That you have not been able to answer even the most rudimentary questions posed about these games is totally damning evidence that you have no knowledge of chess. And at the heart of it, an understanding of the game is necessary to see what's been laid out before you.
Look, you don't have to be a PHD Evolutionary Biologists to understand and accept the principals of Evolution, equally you don't have to be a high level chess player to understand the principals of chess. All you have to do is explain the relevant aspects which ONLY NOW are you beginning to touch on.
You seem to revel in obtuse and unhelpful explanations, it's taken you this long to put it in anything approaching relevant terms.
I'm not an idiot just because I just so happen to have not learned all the tactics and strategies and advanced theory of competitive chess. So how about you get off your high horse and give more constructive responses and explanations. Because "shut up and blindly accept my claims, you lowly non-chess-expert" won't convince anyone but the meek and gullible.
I am completely convinced you are arguing just to argue a point...
I'm convinced you completely skipped over half of my last post where I outlined why I was making this stance. The part about card-counting, supposedly "impossible" without machines. How I think you are being unjust and myopic on human capability.
I have knowledge of chess, I just haven't played it to this level. If you are going to exclude everyone who isn't a high level chess player then WHY ARE YOU POSTING IN ESCAPIST FORUMS!!!!?!?! Hardly anyone on these forums plays chess competitively to that level. It's not like this is a simple thing you can pick up, I have done as much research as is reasonable on this, but you could at the very least explain yourself rather than boast of how much more you know about your hobby than I do.
Stop hiding behind your special knowledge and use it.
You may know chess better than me but we all know humans as well as each other. You can know as well as I that while with age comes wisdom and experience the memory is reduced somewhat. A younger player can run interference, and keep track of the many more variables, play a wild risky game just so that a he can't but put into a wise old trap of trying to play it safe. Couldn't he just be recognising an aspect of how computers confound Grand Masters so emulates it.
There is no need to play it. None. It is overkill. Black has a completely won position. Qf3 is an escalation and a risk that is just not needed.
Okay, but he is playing against a Grand Master. It's obviously not safe enough as no matter how good an established strategy it is, the Grand Master will probably know and recognise this well enough to have the perfect response. Surely, his best strategy against a seasoned veteran would be to do the unexpected, the unusual as the risks with trying to keep track of increasing complexity that are better than going by the book and falling into a trap.
"Only a computer, which thinks tactically, and has perfect tactical vision would escalate the position like this."
No. If you can recognise that, then he can too and he can decide to make that decision. Obviously if he tries to do it EXACTLY like a computer his brain couldn't do it, but it's not an absolute one-or-the-other approach, surely.
You have to admit, even playing the "obviously safe" way... that's no guarantee to beat the Grand Masters is it? Come on, tell me if I'm wrong, if you always take the obviously safe and conservative moves, you're odds against the Grand Masters are still terrible.
Now he was playing against the Grand Masters, was he playing against them knowing he'd losee? Or did he want to actually win? What's the point in keeping reserves and staying safe if you're being so predictable that a more experienced player will easily see an established conservative strategy?
And NOTHING YOU'VE SAID HERE says computer, it outlines a series of decisions that a human could just as easily have made. Either that or you have done a terrible job of explaining the situation. I can explain my profession, hobbies and interests to those who are not well versed in them to the point of understanding a few relevant principals, I don't see why you can't either.
