Automated vs Discretionary

[forker]

That's no different than basing entries on a set time interval, for example every 10 minutes, just to get into the market. That's pointless however I can see the whole "risk" spin on this and how it can trap a mind. It's a fools game if I must be honest

 

[Liquid validity]

That's no different than basing entries on a set time interval, for example every 10 minutes, just to get into the market. That's pointless however I can see the whole "risk" spin on this and how it can trap a mind. It's a fools game if I must be honest

Fair enough if thats your view, I don't care what anyone else thinks anyway.
Suits me and does what I want
On the face of it my description is vague - thats intentional, I'm not going into specifics.
I can't say I blame you for dismissing it as vague waffle

 

[counter_violent]

Better is subjective.

The brain has very different qualities to your desktop.

- The brain is massively parallel in its processing ability. It is comparable to to about 1000 CPU's working in parallel
- The clock speed of the brain is really slow by comparison to the clock in your laptop
- Our short term memory is limited to a few pieces of information (about 6)
- Our long term memory is good but the indexing is rubbish (infinite but cannot find it when you want it)

So it is good at certain kinds of complex tasks and analysis but it does it slowly. Finally you have your emotions loaded on top of that which play havoc with the results generated.

If you want to brute force a repetitive task without missing a heartbeat, an automated system is magnificent. If you want to process & correlate many facts simultaneously and use some of the high speed, cognitive capabilities we possess to achieve a decision, then no machine can match the brain (currently).

Not quite true but I know what you mean.

Garry Kasparov vs IBM's Deep Blue

 

[robster970]

Chess is a different problem domain. It doesn't require parallel processing. Heuristics and brute force can beat people.

 

[BeginnerJoe]

It doesn't require parallel processing.

But it did. According to wiki:

The system derived its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30 nodes ...

 

[alphadude]

But it did. According to wiki:

The system derived its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30 nodes ...

that's correct. generally it depends on the algorithm used.

The most basic algo is exhausting all possible paths (aka brute force).

other lesser accurate algos use heuristics; to gain speed at the cost of quality.

btw; the human body have approximately 73,000 threads running in parallel.

 

[the hare]

But it did. According to wiki:

The system derived its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30 nodes ...

It might have been implemented with parallel processing for reasons of performance (I assume there are time constraints imposed in competitive chess), and maybe the problem even lends itself to a parallel approach, but parallel processing is not a requirement.

I went to school with a chess grand master, and I see him quite regularly as we tend to travel to similar places. During flights I've seen him playing on what looks to be a fairly basic chess computer that's probably available in most places for a few dollars. In fairness on the few times I've seen him playing during flights he does tends to play 3 or 4 games simultaneously !

 

[counter_violent]

It might have been implemented with parallel processing for reasons of performance (I assume there are time constraints imposed in competitive chess), and maybe the problem even lends itself to a parallel approach, but parallel processing is not a requirement.

I went to school with a chess grand master, and I see him quite regularly as we tend to travel to similar places. During flights I've seen him playing on what looks to be a fairly basic chess computer that's probably available in most places for a few dollars. In fairness on the few times I've seen him playing during flights he does tends to play 3 or 4 games simultaneously !

Probably quite a lot more than that...they tend to play correspondence chess too against opponents the world over...1 move / day type stuff. Additionally when they do exhibition matches, they may be playing 30 simultaneous games.
Congresses, I've played a few, fek they are gruellers, normally run friday through sunday 2 x matches / day. Completely does your brain in and the opposition is stronger with every passing round, assuming your winning each round.

 

[the hare]

Additionally when they do exhibition matches, they may be playing 30 simultaneous games..

Its beyond my comprehension how anyone could play 30 games of chess concurrently. Presumably they are looking at each board as if it was the first time they'd seen the situation, and then developing a strategy from that point (kind of like a brute force heuristic method)

The gap between someone whose in the top 1% of players worldwide, and the dozen or so at the top of the game is probably immense, and more than enough to allow them to play sub optimally and still beat most opponents ?

Surely they cant be remembering the development of each game ?

 

[alphadude]

Its beyond my comprehension how anyone could play 30 games of chess concurrently. Presumably they are looking at each board as if it was the first time they'd seen the situation, and then developing a strategy from that point (kind of like a brute force heuristic method)

The gap between someone whose in the top 1% of players worldwide, and the dozen or so at the top of the game is probably immense, and more than enough to allow them to play sub optimally and still beat most opponents ?

Surely they cant be remembering the development of each game ?

they follow patterns and heuristic. The more hours they clock; the more subconscious record reflexes. kind of muscle memory.

A mechanic I knew can tell what's wrong with your car just by listening to engine noise.

 

[counter_violent]

Its beyond my comprehension how anyone could play 30 games of chess concurrently. Presumably they are looking at each board as if it was the first time they'd seen the situation, and then developing a strategy from that point (kind of like a brute force heuristic method)

The gap between someone whose in the top 1% of players worldwide, and the dozen or so at the top of the game is probably immense, and more than enough to allow them to play sub optimally and still beat most opponents ?

Surely they cant be remembering the development of each game ?

Simultaneous exhibition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well if you find all that astounding....try this for size

Occasionally, grandmasters have given blindfold simultaneous displays. In such displays, the exhibitor does not look at any of the boards, but retains all the moves of the games in his/her head. The opponents utilize boards and pieces in the standard fashion, but their moves are communicated verbally to the exhibitor by an arbiter or intermediary.
:clap::clap::clap:

 

[the hare]

Occasionally, grandmasters have given blindfold simultaneous displays.

That's just showing off !

I'm going to develop an algorithm that makes random chess moves, and pop along to one of these events to see how I do !

 

[counter_violent]

they follow patterns and heuristic. The more hours they clock; the more subconscious record reflexes. kind of muscle memory.

This can apply to opening plays ....the middle game, where variations come into play, are the hardest part of any game...the end game is also quite tricky, even though there are less pieces to think about, every move needs to be the best move cos a draw situation can soon become a loss with the tiniest of errors. Drawn games are a very acceptable conclusion to a game...kind of related to trading in so far as you live to fight another day !

A mechanic I knew can tell what's wrong with your car just by listening to engine noise.

Yes and a screw driver helps which can be placed at various points on the engine and held to the ear....to magnify and pinpoint the noise.

 

[counter_violent]

That's just showing off !

I actually know a completely blind chess player and his income is derived from playing congresses (prize money) He uses a hand held brail board to feel the pieces and determine his next move.....his opponent has to move his pieces and press his time clock when he calls out the move. Fascinating to watch him...and also his opponents faces when they are getting slaughtered !

I'm going to develop an algorithm that makes random chess moves, and pop along to one of these events to see how I do !

Aye alright then It will be slaughtered

 

[the hare]

Aye alright then It will be slaughtered

I shall obviously test it first to save myself from potential embarrassment

I guess most people taking on a grand master don't do that well. My strategy was more along the lines of just being an annoying fecker and hoping they'd settle for a draw. There's no way my opponent can second guess my strategy if I don't have one ! Surely that must be of some help in prolonging the inevitable slaughter.

I don't play chess but assuming someone very good was playing someone who didn't have a clue, whats the minimum number of moves required to beat them ?

 

[counter_violent]

I shall obviously test it first to save myself from potential embarrassment

I guess most people taking on a grand master don't do that well. My strategy was more along the lines of just being an annoying fecker and hoping they'd settle for a draw. There's no way my opponent can second guess my strategy if I don't have one ! Surely that must be of some help in prolonging the inevitable slaughter.

I don't play chess but assuming someone very good was playing someone who didn't have a clue, whats the minimum number of moves required to beat them ?

2 its called fools mate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool's_mate

 

[counter_violent]

Most games in blindfold exhibitions

Miguel Najdorf played against 45 opponents in a simultaneous blindfold exhibition given at Sao Paulo in 1947, winning 39, losing 2 and drawing 4 games (after a similar display in Rosario, Argentina, in 1943, against 40 players). Later Janos Flesch (52 games) claimed to have broken this record, but his exhibition was not properly monitored and so it was not recognized.[37]
[edit]Most players taking part to a multi-simul

On October 21, 2006, a gigantic multi-simul was organized in El Zócalo, Mexico City's central square. About 600 masters played against 20 to 25 opponents each. The total number of players was 13,446 according to the authorities. The tables were arranged in squares of different colors, each containing seven simuls. The square resembled in this way a giant chessboard. Anatoly Karpov was a guest at the event but did not play in the simuls as he was busy signing 1951 copies of his latest book. The Guinness Book of Records acknowledged the event as the largest one held in a single day.[38]
[edit]Most simultaneous games

On February 8–9, 2011, Iranian grandmaster Ehsan Ghaem-Maghami achieved the Guinness world record for most simultaneous chess games. He played for 25 hours against 604 players, winning 580 (97.35%) of the games, drawing 16, and losing 8.[39]


More interesting/ useless info for ya.

Fancy a game of chess ?

 

[VielGeld]

they follow patterns and heuristic. The more hours they clock; the more subconscious record reflexes. kind of muscle memory.

A mechanic I knew can tell what's wrong with your car just by listening to engine noise.

Yerp!

Not to brag, but back in high school, my friends and I got so good at playing games, that we could play Blitz against each other in less than 30s. We also had a guy who was national champion or something for his age bracket and he liked passing by from time to time, too. Tough opponent.

I can think through moves pretty quickly by now. Been a good while since I've played me some chess, though!

------

As for a random strat, I would be interested in how that would work out. I imagine it might have an edge early on because the other guy might not understand the strat. But once he's caught on, I doubt the system will win a single game.

 

[rsh01]

this guy is quite good...
A chess prodigy explains how his mind works - 60 Minutes Overtime - CBS News

good thread btw

 

[robster970]

But it did. According to wiki:

The system derived its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30 nodes ...

It was of it's time. You have the same power in your PC now and Fritz could probably beat it in software alone.

If you were a rated player you would probably know this kind of stuff Joe. I guess you aren't though.

You can get to be an average club tournament level player (i.e. about a rating of 1200) just by following some basic chess tactics and recognising them when they turn up on the board. Providing you understand which part of the game you are in and the relative usefulness of pieces as the game evolves, you can look astounding to non-regular chess players.

Pattern recognition and the associated heuristics can get you a long way.

Fischer & Kasparovs chess rating where up in the 2700's or so. Playing somebody with a rating of 1800 or above if you are average feels like you are engaging with the dark arts. You just cannot see wtf they are doing or why.