Chess Match Thread

[babe]

One Brow vs. babe

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 e6
5. Bg5 Be7
6. e3 Nd5
7. Bxe7 Qxe7
8. Bxc4 Qb4
9. Qb3 Qxb3
10. Bxb3 c6
11. 0-0 Nd7
12. Nxd4 exd
13. Rfc1 Nf6
14. Ba4 Bd7
15. b4 b5
16. Bb3 0-0
17. Ne5 Rfc1
18. Rc2 a5
19. bxa Bd8
20. Rac1 Ra6
21. f3 g6
22. Ng4 Kg2
23. Nxf6 Kxf6
24. Bxd5 Ke7
25. Rc5 f5
26. e4 Bd7
27. Bb3 fxe
28. fxe Rf8
29. Rf1 Rxf1
30. Kxf1

I have been expecting you to pick up one one pawn. I'm not sure how you see yourself getting the second.

One at a time?

Rxa5

 

[One Brow]

Enes CanTear You Apart;950620]



1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. e5 c5
4. c3 Nc6
5. Nf3 Qb6
6. Be2 Be7
7. O-O Bd7
8. dxc5 Bxc5
9. b4 Be7
10. Na3 0-0-0

Thank you for fixing my notation.

 

[One Brow]

One Brow vs. babe

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 e6
5. Bg5 Be7
6. e3 Nd5
7. Bxe7 Qxe7
8. Bxc4 Qb4
9. Qb3 Qxb3
10. Bxb3 c6
11. 0-0 Nd7
12. Nxd4 exd
13. Rfc1 Nf6
14. Ba4 Bd7
15. b4 b5
16. Bb3 0-0
17. Ne5 Rfc1
18. Rc2 a5
19. bxa Bd8
20. Rac1 Ra6
21. f3 g6
22. Ng4 Kg2
23. Nxf6 Kxf6
24. Bxd5 Ke7
25. Rc5 f5
26. e4 Bd7
27. Bb3 fxe
28. fxe Rf8
29. Rf1 Rxf1
30. Kxf1 Rxa5
31. Kf2

Well, I do hate the times where people take two pawns on a single move.

 

[babe]

One Brow vs. babe

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 e6
5. Bg5 Be7
6. e3 Nd5
7. Bxe7 Qxe7
8. Bxc4 Qb4
9. Qb3 Qxb3
10. Bxb3 c6
11. 0-0 Nd7
12. Nxd4 exd
13. Rfc1 Nf6
14. Ba4 Bd7
15. b4 b5
16. Bb3 0-0
17. Ne5 Rfc1
18. Rc2 a5
19. bxa Bd8
20. Rac1 Ra6
21. f3 g6
22. Ng4 Kg2
23. Nxf6 Kxf6
24. Bxd5 Ke7
25. Rc5 f5
26. e4 Bd7
27. Bb3 fxe
28. fxe Rf8
29. Rf1 Rxf1
30. Kxf1 Rxa5
31. Kf2

Well, I do hate the times where people take two pawns on a single move.

As you might have noted already, the "balance of power" in the battle zone was turned by the presence of my King. Bringing your King up might materially cure that, but it will take another move or two. Your Bishop/pawn duo in the corner projecting righting into the fight is still my biggest problem. That will cost me some moves. . . . .

edit 5:42 pm MST: So I've looked at a few different scenarios, and it seems I must now move my King, to the upcoming centerfield contest. . . .

Kd6

 

[babe]

@OB

well, I think I have to stand in front of the advancing pawns which could become queens. I'm leaving the g and h pawns vulnerable to some extent, if you went after them with the bishop I could get at least one on a black square, and if I allow the other one to be taken, it would possibly be in trade for your a pawn. It's pretty tight on what can happen in the advance from the middle, there are plenty of mistakes I could make that would lose the game, but I think the best you can do reduces to an equal number of pawns and the difference in the game being the positions of the kings when the pawn advance in the center is spent.

In my experience playing my computer, the computer programs don't give sufficient consideration to King position or pawn position in the end game. . . .

So I'll be out on the ranch for a couple of days. . . .

 

[One Brow]

One Brow vs. babe

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 e6
5. Bg5 Be7
6. e3 Nd5
7. Bxe7 Qxe7
8. Bxc4 Qb4
9. Qb3 Qxb3
10. Bxb3 c6
11. 0-0 Nd7
12. Nxd4 exd
13. Rfc1 Nf6
14. Ba4 Bd7
15. b4 b5
16. Bb3 0-0
17. Ne5 Rfc1
18. Rc2 a5
19. bxa Bd8
20. Rac1 Ra6
21. f3 g6
22. Ng4 Kg2
23. Nxf6 Kxf6
24. Bxd5 Ke7
25. Rc5 f5
26. e4 Bd7
27. Bb3 fxe
28. fxe Rf8
29. Rf1 Rxf1
30. Kxf1 Rxa5
31. Kf2 Kd6
32. e5+

I think my bishop is too useful on the queen-side to go chasing after pawns on the king-side.

I'm curious where you think your king will be needed most.

 

[babe]

One Brow vs. babe

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 e6
5. Bg5 Be7
6. e3 Nd5
7. Bxe7 Qxe7
8. Bxc4 Qb4
9. Qb3 Qxb3
10. Bxb3 c6
11. 0-0 Nd7
12. Nxd4 exd
13. Rfc1 Nf6
14. Ba4 Bd7
15. b4 b5
16. Bb3 0-0
17. Ne5 Rfc1
18. Rc2 a5
19. bxa Bd8
20. Rac1 Ra6
21. f3 g6
22. Ng4 Kg2
23. Nxf6 Kxf6
24. Bxd5 Ke7
25. Rc5 f5
26. e4 Bd7
27. Bb3 fxe
28. fxe Rf8
29. Rf1 Rxf1
30. Kxf1 Rxa5
31. Kf2 Kd6
32. e5+

I think my bishop is too useful on the queen-side to go chasing after pawns on the king-side.

I'm curious where you think your king will be needed most.

I thought that was your best move.

I've gone over several game paths following from the two ways i can go with this, and as I recall the better way is to hold the center as much as possible. I'm two hours from home,plus whatever the wife and kids think my priorities should be. . . .lol . . .

I want to look at it again before I make the move.

I discovered a new computer chess app, my daughter downloaded it for me. It is awesome. It beats me so good, and quicker. I can play it even on the ranch because it resides right here on my mini iPad.

I finally beat it, and twice in a row.

I can see why Siro was saying the computers are getting better. It is still true though that familiarity breeds contempt, because after a while I know what it will do . . . .

I don't know what you will do. There are a lot of ways I've found which will lead to your victory in this game, and a few where I could win. Your Bishop stands in the way of all of them, so it will be my aim to force a trade on it. . . .

edit. . . . much much later. . . .

well, math wins all the time. When you have just two choices each step of the way, there are a thousand different outcomes just ten steps down the road. . . . a million possibilities just twenty moves down the road.. . . . I can't possibly work through all of them, though a computer can. . . . in milliseconds. . . . . Siro wins I suppose in his argument with me about computers being better at chess than humans. However, humans are superior because they can make a decision simply because they love it, or something.

both possible moves lead to a standoff on the goal line, and the pawns can be stopped, but who knows, OB might see a way to force his way in, or I might miss a chance to stop him.

All in all, I can see why Siro, Jonah,and Enes have gone off to play lightning rounds of chess on another site that they can do that on. . . . very easily.

 

[babe]

One Brow vs. babe

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 e6
5. Bg5 Be7
6. e3 Nd5
7. Bxe7 Qxe7
8. Bxc4 Qb4
9. Qb3 Qxb3
10. Bxb3 c6
11. 0-0 Nd7
12. Nxd4 exd
13. Rfc1 Nf6
14. Ba4 Bd7
15. b4 b5
16. Bb3 0-0
17. Ne5 Rfc1
18. Rc2 a5
19. bxa Bd8
20. Rac1 Ra6
21. f3 g6
22. Ng4 Kg2
23. Nxf6 Kxf6
24. Bxd5 Ke7
25. Rc5 f5
26. e4 Bd7
27. Bb3 fxe
28. fxe Rf8
29. Rf1 Rxf1
30. Kxf1 Rxa5
31. Kf2 Kd6
32. e5+

I think my bishop is too useful on the queen-side to go chasing after pawns on the king-side.

I'm curious where you think your king will be needed most.

Ke7

 

[babe]

While the other move, to the spot behind my pawn, is appealing too, and would lead to my King eventually moving back in front of the advancing pawns. . . . . the move I chose it preferable precisely because it leads to action before OB's King can be gotten into position to materially turn the balance of power.

Two advancing pawns with a King behind them can't be stopped. This way I can't be stopped from executing some moves that will almost surely lead to my victory. In my opinion, this is a demonstration of the effectiveness of the King in an attack sequence.

A lot of players want to secure their King in a corner of the board and then go on a marauding expedition. Almost all very good players can mount an attack on any defense precisely because of the ineffectiveness of an attack while significant power is "out of play".

 

[Siro]

I thought that was your best move.

I've gone over several game paths following from the two ways i can go with this, and as I recall the better way is to hold the center as much as possible. I'm two hours from home,plus whatever the wife and kids think my priorities should be. . . .lol . . .

I want to look at it again before I make the move.

I discovered a new computer chess app, my daughter downloaded it for me. It is awesome. It beats me so good, and quicker. I can play it even on the ranch because it resides right here on my mini iPad.

I finally beat it, and twice in a row.

I can see why Siro was saying the computers are getting better. It is still true though that familiarity breeds contempt, because after a while I know what it will do . . . .

I don't know what you will do. There are a lot of ways I've found which will lead to your victory in this game, and a few where I could win. Your Bishop stands in the way of all of them, so it will be my aim to force a trade on it. . . .

edit. . . . much much later. . . .

well, math wins all the time. When you have just two choices each step of the way, there are a thousand different outcomes just ten steps down the road. . . . a million possibilities just twenty moves down the road.. . . . I can't possibly work through all of them, though a computer can. . . . in milliseconds. . . . . Siro wins I suppose in his argument with me about computers being better at chess than humans. However, humans are superior because they can make a decision simply because they love it, or something.

both possible moves lead to a standoff on the goal line, and the pawns can be stopped, but who knows, OB might see a way to force his way in, or I might miss a chance to stop him.

All in all, I can see why Siro, Jonah,and Enes have gone off to play lightning rounds of chess on another site that they can do that on. . . . very easily.

Download a program that's actually supposed to beat humans, as opposed to a phone app. For example, try Deep Fritz. My challenge still stands; if you beat a top computer program even once, I'll give you $500. You have the rest of your life to try.

 

[babe]

Download a program that's actually supposed to beat humans, as opposed to a phone app. For example, try Deep Fritz. My challenge still stands; if you beat a top computer program even once, I'll give you $500. You have the rest of your life to try.

That's a respectable offer. How will I prove it to you if I do?

So here's the argument about a universe that is essentially infinite as opposed to the concept about a universe that is finite. What is the best approach to take in understanding what's out there, to start out with a few facts and some limited tools of logic, or look for a theory of everything. . . . in either case we poor humans will need to be moving our discussion along past some things we used to believe. . . .

A chess game is probably not an infinite universe, and all the possibilities could probably be numbered and stored in a data center somewhere, and we could just have fun announcing our choice of known outcomes I suppose.
But humans do have a choice every step of the way. Do we have an actual mathematical result specifying the total number of possible games that could be played out?

In a game like a coin toss with two outcomes possible for each "move", a sequence of ten moves will generate up to 1024 specific results, twenty moves will generate more than a million. A chess game of fewer than twenty moves is probable only if there is an unequal skill match. For folks like me and OB, we could probably average thirty moves each in our games. Really good players know how to achieve the mate efficiently. . . . but given all the matches ever done, with millions of humans versus humans, or computers, I think we have probably logged ten to twenty billion different or unique "games", out of . . . . . including those with absolutely no reason for moves. . . . . maybe a hundred billion.

Two super computers using the very best programs would conceivably play only one game, and keep playing it over and over again, and it would always be won by white.

So tell you what, I'll watch that game a few times, study it out, and determine what the basis for each move is in some programming hierarchy, and analyze that set of concepts, and see if I can figure out a way to "trick" it in a way that will give me a chance to win.

I have a cousin who, it is rumored, studied math, and became a notorious card counter who could beat the casino all too frequently. On the other hand, I have a sister in law, a Chinese cultural product though she is an American citizen now, who loves to gamble. She walks into the casino with some kind of mystical aura or feeling, and unconsciously goes around winning at everything. My brother used to think it was going to be the ruin of his budget and his finances. . . . . a statistical oddity perhaps, bound eventually to prove the odds do rule. Well, I can't prove she really wins at the casino, because she earns a lot of money and nobody really knows.

I do know that in chess there are times when an unorthodox player can invite in a perfectly logical attack sequence and draw the opponent out to some vulnerability to counterattack. This means that any computer program can be beat as well. There is no "perfect game" nor any "perfect chess program". This is my statement that even a simple chess board is in fact an infinite universe.

Like I said before, I have a business and I can hardly afford to spend a day on $500, and my wife has some expectations that are just. But as a game, I will enjoy playing chess because of its value in teaching logic and consequences of choice, and planning. My girls are not really all that interested in it, as somehow they have other interests in life.

I will accept the possibility that you are ultimately going to be vindicated, but I think you will see some better chess programs developed that can beat your "Deep Fritz" as well, which is tantamount to my claim that a human can do it. . . . hey we write those programs, don't we?

For me, this is the most fun I know of. . . . . chess takes second seat only to philosophical meanderings through the universe of possible universes. . . .

 

[Siro]

That's a respectable offer. How will I prove it to you if I do?

So here's the argument about a universe that is essentially infinite as opposed to the concept about a universe that is finite. What is the best approach to take in understanding what's out there, to start out with a few facts and some limited tools of logic, or look for a theory of everything. . . . in either case we poor humans will need to be moving our discussion along past some things we used to believe. . . .

A chess game is probably not an infinite universe, and all the possibilities could probably be numbered and stored in a data center somewhere, and we could just have fun announcing our choice of known outcomes I suppose.
But humans do have a choice every step of the way. Do we have an actual mathematical result specifying the total number of possible games that could be played out?

In a game like a coin toss with two outcomes possible for each "move", a sequence of ten moves will generate up to 1024 specific results, twenty moves will generate more than a million. A chess game of fewer than twenty moves is probable only if there is an unequal skill match. For folks like me and OB, we could probably average thirty moves each in our games. Really good players know how to achieve the mate efficiently. . . . but given all the matches ever done, with millions of humans versus humans, or computers, I think we have probably logged ten to twenty billion different or unique "games", out of . . . . . including those with absolutely no reason for moves. . . . . maybe a hundred billion.

Two super computers using the very best programs would conceivably play only one game, and keep playing it over and over again, and it would always be won by white.

So tell you what, I'll watch that game a few times, study it out, and determine what the basis for each move is in some programming hierarchy, and analyze that set of concepts, and see if I can figure out a way to "trick" it in a way that will give me a chance to win.

I have a cousin who, it is rumored, studied math, and became a notorious card counter who could beat the casino all too frequently. On the other hand, I have a sister in law, a Chinese cultural product though she is an American citizen now, who loves to gamble. She walks into the casino with some kind of mystical aura or feeling, and unconsciously goes around winning at everything. My brother used to think it was going to be the ruin of his budget and his finances. . . . . a statistical oddity perhaps, bound eventually to prove the odds do rule. Well, I can't prove she really wins at the casino, because she earns a lot of money and nobody really knows.

I do know that in chess there are times when an unorthodox player can invite in a perfectly logical attack sequence and draw the opponent out to some vulnerability to counterattack. This means that any computer program can be beat as well. There is no "perfect game" nor any "perfect chess program". This is my statement that even a simple chess board is in fact an infinite universe.

Like I said before, I have a business and I can hardly afford to spend a day on $500, and my wife has some expectations that are just. But as a game, I will enjoy playing chess because of its value in teaching logic and consequences of choice, and planning. My girls are not really all that interested in it, as somehow they have other interests in life.

I will accept the possibility that you are ultimately going to be vindicated, but I think you will see some better chess programs developed that can beat your "Deep Fritz" as well, which is tantamount to my claim that a human can do it. . . . hey we write those programs, don't we?

For me, this is the most fun I know of. . . . . chess takes second seat only to philosophical meanderings through the universe of possible universes. . . .

I'd have to take your word for it. Just let me know if you ever beat a world-class program at full strength, and you'll have your money.

Technology is advancing at such a staggering rate, and I'm curious as to how the "human intelligence cannot be replicated" crowd will react as they see computers surpassing human cognitive ability in more and more areas. It is also quite possible you'll live long enough to see computers that cannot be distinguished from humans through conversation. And I'm not talking about programming trickery, like cramming in millions of different answers to most conceivable situations. I am talking about a machine that is capable of formulating responses based on its knowledge and experience independent of any programmed response, and purely based on creative application of its knowledge and experience (like a human). If such a thing comes to pass, would you consider it intelligent? Is there any threshold of intelligence that you'd accept to recognize man-made machines as sentient entities much like humans? Or do you have philosophical/religious reasons to reject that notion regardless of how intelligent a machine appears to be?

 

[babe]

I'd have to take your word for it. Just let me know if you ever beat a world-class program at full strength, and you'll have your money.

Technology is advancing at such a staggering rate, and I'm curious as to how the "human intelligence cannot be replicated" crowd will react as they see computers surpassing human cognitive ability in more and more areas. It is also quite possible you'll live long enough to see computers that cannot be distinguished from humans through conversation. And I'm not talking about programming trickery, like cramming in millions of different answers to most conceivable situations. I am talking about a machine that is capable of formulating responses based on its knowledge and experience independent of any programmed response, and purely based on creative application of its knowledge and experience (like a human). If such a thing comes to pass, would you consider it intelligent? Is there any threshold of intelligence that you'd accept to recognize man-made machines as sentient entities much like humans? Or do you have philosophical/religious reasons to reject that notion regardless of how intelligent a machine appears to be?

Mormons, in terms of "official" statements, have moved away from their originality trying to pass as "Christian", but I don't accept transitional authoritarianism in either religion or government. Few thinkers fully appreciate the radical underpinnings of original Mormonism. . ..

A God that is only "god" because. . .iff....He adheres to truth and virtue, whose place in the Cosmos is earned through willingness to serve others, who also are uncreated eternal individual entities called "intelligences".

Transhumanism is the idea that we can take the place of the "Judeo/Christian" god as rendered later by medieval organized statist religions, which saw man as slaves to the State.

A machine is only a more efficient slave to someone.

The present LDS leadership is compromised as a tool dedicated to statist priorities, officially speaking, but the real American Revolution is destined to re-assert the imperatives of human dignity and human rights, and machines will never be humans.

 

[Siro]

Mormons, in terms of "official" statements, have moved away from their originality trying to pass as "Christian", but I don't accept transitional authoritarianism in either religion or government. Few thinkers fully appreciate the radical underpinnings of original Mormonism. . ..

A God that is only "god" because. . .iff....He adheres to truth and virtue, whose place in the Cosmos is earned through willingness to serve others, who also are uncreated eternal individual entities called "intelligences".

Transhumanism is the idea that we can take the place of the "Judeo/Christian" god as rendered later by medieval organized statist religions, which saw man as slaves to the State.

A machine is only a more efficient slave to someone.

The present LDS leadership is compromised as a tool dedicated to statist priorities, officially speaking, but the real American Revolution is destined to re-assert the imperatives of human dignity and human rights, and machines will never be humans.

I'd like a more direct, and rational, answer to the question; why can't machines be like humans? Your answers often are too dependent on your own internal perspective, and you rarely attempt to use the tools of logic that enables others to understand why you reached a certain conclusion. So let me ask again. If a machine is self-aware, can act and think through its personal experience, as opposed to programmed response, and is ultimately too complex to be perfectly predictable, what makes it less than a human? Keep in mind that the word 'machine' is a convention that we use to describe man-made systems, and not a concept with inherent universal meaning that relates to servitude or anything else.

 

[♪alt13]

I'd like a more direct, and rational, answer to the question; why can't machines be like humans? Your answers often are too dependent on your own internal perspective, and you rarely attempt to use the tools of logic that enables others to understand why you reached a certain conclusion. So let me ask again. If a machine is self-aware, can act and think through its personal experience, as opposed to programmed response, and is ultimately too complex to be perfectly predictable, what makes it less than a human? Keep in mind that the word 'machine' is a convention that we use to describe man-made systems, and not a concept with inherent universal meaning that relates to servitude or anything else.

What use would there be for "God the Creator" in a world where mankind was capable of creating "Machine People"? If humanity can be recreated without a divine spark then what does that say about the existence of Babe's soul?

 

[babe]

I'd like a more direct, and rational, answer to the question; why can't machines be like humans? Your answers often are too dependent on your own internal perspective, and you rarely attempt to use the tools of logic that enables others to understand why you reached a certain conclusion. So let me ask again. If a machine is self-aware, can act and think through its personal experience, as opposed to programmed response, and is ultimately too complex to be perfectly predictable, what makes it less than a human? Keep in mind that the word 'machine' is a convention that we use to describe man-made systems, and not a concept with inherent universal meaning that relates to servitude or anything else.

Let's co-author a cutting-edge book on this topic?

A "machine" made by man, when it ages or wears out or malfunctions beyond repair, is only a pile of old parts.

We might not have incomtrovertiblro evidence of our eternal nature with a kind of life both before and after this present existence, but however that may be, it is essential to the idea of inherent human rights that humans are more than machines.

It is essential for any ongoing credibility or relevance to assert thataby "god" we attribute our faith to should actually be in existence, acting on principles that are good and deserving respect.

We humans cannot define God, only approach in understanding what is. Same thing for the universe in general, science or any other format for enquiry. . .thus we should not be unwilling to embrace truth as we may find it.

Saying that prior belief must take precedence appears to meto fail the test of truth. What is true will stand up to better I formation.

I think it is similarly short-sighted to place faith in a present level of understanding.

Ultimately, if humans are the created things of any God", the best we can claim in human rights is "God-given". I claim inherent rights.equal to those of any other human.

A machine we create can only claim "man-given" rights, say those specified by a legislative body or other government-specified "rights".

Transhumanism has been believed by some since before Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein, asserting that technology can improve upon life, essentially improving on God, and making us better than God

I reject that thesis in preference to the existing God that has brought us thus far and who indeed is moving forward with a better program for human advancement, on virtuous principles that honor our intrinsic human rights.......

Recognizing and respecting our capacity for choice, for virtue, for love and for dreaming and wanting things that arise within our own natures.

Making us far more than machines or programs will ever be. . .

Creating a machine that dreams. . . .hmmmmmm. Who knows. . . .,

 

[Siro]

Let's co-author a cutting-edge book on this topic?

A "machine" made by man, when it ages or wears out or malfunctions beyond repair, is only a pile of old parts.

We might not have incomtrovertiblro evidence of our eternal nature with a kind of life both before and after this present existence, but however that may be, it is essential to the idea of inherent human rights that humans are more than machines.

It is essential for any ongoing credibility or relevance to assert thataby "god" we attribute our faith to should actually be in existence, acting on principles that are good and deserving respect.

We humans cannot define God, only approach in understanding what is. Same thing for the universe in general, science or any other format for enquiry. . .thus we should not be unwilling to embrace truth as we may find it.

Saying that prior belief must take precedence appears to meto fail the test of truth. What is true will stand up to better I formation.

I think it is similarly short-sighted to place faith in a present level of understanding.

Ultimately, if humans are the created things of any God", the best we can claim in human rights is "God-given". I claim inherent rights.equal to those of any other human.

A machine we create can only claim "man-given" rights, say those specified by a legislative body or other government-specified "rights".

Transhumanism has been believed by some since before Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein, asserting that technology can improve upon life, essentially improving on God, and making us better than God

I reject that thesis in preference to the existing God that has brought us thus far and who indeed is moving forward with a better program for human advancement, on virtuous principles that honor our intrinsic human rights.......

Recognizing and respecting our capacity for choice, for virtue, for love and for dreaming and wanting things that arise within our own natures.

Making us far more than machines or programs will ever be. . .

Creating a machine that dreams. . . .hmmmmmm. Who knows. . . .,

With all due respect, I think you have a narrow view of life and technology. There are two fundamental problems with your thesis. First, technology can undoubtedly improve on our "state of nature". For example, you'd be hard pressed coming up with a reasonable argument for how clothes corrupt our perfect, God given naked form, and that we would be better off without them (in fact, most Christians seem allergic to the naked form). Secondly, and far more importantly as it relates to transhumanism and this discussion, you buy the false notion that technology is somehow outside of nature. That is not so. Language is a communication technology. Writing is another. Both are required for reliably passing along information from one generation to the next. Through the use of these technologies, we profoundly changed our state of nature. Do you oppose using your brain along with writing technology to learn more about the world and improve yourself through that knowledge? Do you oppose using a computer instead of printed text to accomplish the same thing? The point is, any and all technology we create is the product of our natural brain (created by God, if you're a believer). Yet somehow, God intends for us to limit the use of this inexplicably incredible brain only to an arbitrary set of ideas, tools, and techniques? If God gave us the ability to enhance our brains, then why do you see it as affront to God?

The creation of technology is a product of life no different than any other except in the power of its potential. Unlike other non-technological life forms, we possess the ability to transcend the limits of our environment -planet, even- and perhaps our biology. Surely if there is a God he intended for us to utilize what he gave us to its full potential, and surely he did not intend for us to waste it on primitive ideas like the value of stasis and the undesirability of change. Without the desire to change, there is no point at all to intelligence. And without the freedom to become all we can become, we're no more than machines. And God just happens to be the operator.

 

[ema]

Enes CanTear You Apart;950620]



1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. e5 c5
4. c3 Nc6
5. Nf3 Qb6
6. Be2 Be7
7. O-O Bd7
8. dxc5 Bxc5
9. b4 Be7
10. Na3 0-0-0

Thank you for fixing my notation.

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. e5 c5
4. c3 Nc6
5. Nf3 Qb6
6. Be2 Be7
7. O-O Bd7
8. dxc5 Bxc5
9. b4 Be7
10. Na3 0-0-0
11. Be3

OB, I'm not gonna be around for a week or so, it might be even longer. Wanted to let you know. Thanks for your patience.


As for the recent debate in the thread, this comes from Nakamura, one of the top GMs currently. And he said this early 2011, consider that chess engines these days are much stronger and they are consistently improving algorithmically.

"Computer programs these days are actually stronger than human players, significantly stronger. If I played a computer in a match I would get destroyed, I would be slaughtered, and that's saying something considering where I'm at in the world of chess."

The best thing a GM can do these days against the modern chess engines would be a lucky draw playing white, and that is only if the computer configuration is not so good.

 

[babe]

With all due respect, I think you have a narrow view of life and technology. There are two fundamental problems with your thesis. First, technology can undoubtedly improve on our "state of nature". For example, you'd be hard pressed coming up with a reasonable argument for how clothes corrupt our perfect, God given naked form, and that we would be better off without them (in fact, most Christians seem allergic to the naked form). Secondly, and far more importantly as it relates to transhumanism and this discussion, you buy the false notion that technology is somehow outside of nature. That is not so. Language is a communication technology. Writing is another. Both are required for reliably passing along information from one generation to the next. Through the use of these technologies, we profoundly changed our state of nature. Do you oppose using your brain along with writing technology to learn more about the world and improve yourself through that knowledge? Do you oppose using a computer instead of printed text to accomplish the same thing? The point is, any and all technology we create is the product of our natural brain (created by God, if you're a believer). Yet somehow, God intends for us to limit the use of this inexplicably incredible brain only to an arbitrary set of ideas, tools, and techniques? If God gave us the ability to enhance our brains, then why do you see it as affront to God?

The creation of technology is a product of life no different than any other except in the power of its potential. Unlike other non-technological life forms, we possess the ability to transcend the limits of our environment -planet, even- and perhaps our biology. Surely if there is a God he intended for us to utilize what he gave us to its full potential, and surely he did not intend for us to waste it on primitive ideas like the value of stasis and the undesirability of change. Without the desire to change, there is no point at all to intelligence. And without the freedom to become all we can become, we're no more than machines. And God just happens to be the operator.

Well, I include bacteria and trees, whatever found in nature that has the necessary elements of respiration, or photosynthesis, or any other energy-based process for conducting the business of metabolism, over some life-span of functionality, and generation of descendants having the same basic characteristics. . . .but hell yeah, I don't include stuff that runs on batteries or plugs into a wall outlet. Even if it can "dream".

Freedom is a loose-cannon concept sometimes. Everything operates on some principle and dependent on some context. Cognition implies a right to respond somehow, intelligence implies a right to "change" things within reach with available tools, inherent or acquired skills or known methods. Being "alive" implies a right to defend one's life and utilize resources in the world around us.

I take a dim view of bioengineering sometimes, particularly genetic engineering because I consider our skills dangerous and even life-threatening in the extreme. We have no clue what the impact will be. It's like giving a babe a loaded gun and laughingly encouraging pointing and pulling the trigger.

Tools that increase our capacity to build or meet needs seem more acceptable, things that can save time and energy and labor seem called for, too. You need to break down your analysis and bring your generalities to a specific point relevant to what I'm saying.

I like a lot of progress, I'm just fussy about some things.

In my discussions with you, I am obliquely responding to a notion that you're a "progressive" sort of brave new world dreamer with a penchant for organized human programs directed by some high-level intellectuals for the good of humanity. Something I think is inherently fascist because it's always money talking and money walking and money calling the tune. . . . meaning a few humans with inordinate power as things are. Colleges and universities are dependent on donations from large-scale businesses and inordinately-wealthy individuals, and there are always some strings attached. . . . So our "intellectuals" at the highest levels tend to be singing their tunes. . . .

I keep singing a different tune, about how decentralized decisions on micro levels have proven themselves in nature more competent to produce a succession of successful adaptations and responses to changes in the world environment and in fact in all the local environments, where we find life forms adapted to the niche. I like the idea of individuals making decisions relevant to their own interests on the most fundamental level of responsibility.

And yes, let's bust the trusts all over again.

And yes, what I'm concerned about is technology controlled by those corporates/cartels/trusts/elites to the exclusion of little ol me. I might have a PC and a chess phone app, but I think I have a problem being outgunned technologically by corporates and their captive government arms.

 

[babe]

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. e5 c5
4. c3 Nc6
5. Nf3 Qb6
6. Be2 Be7
7. O-O Bd7
8. dxc5 Bxc5
9. b4 Be7
10. Na3 0-0-0
11. Be3

OB, I'm not gonna be around for a week or so, it might be even longer. Wanted to let you know. Thanks for your patience.


As for the recent debate in the thread, this comes from Nakamura, one of the top GMs currently. And he said this early 2011, consider that chess engines these days are much stronger and they are consistently improving algorithmically.



The best thing a GM can do these days against the modern chess engines would be a lucky draw playing white, and that is only if the computer configuration is not so good.

A Grand Master can still be stupid once in a while. Most of us are often stupid. We just don't think things through carefully enough. It's not that we can not or could not figure things out as well as a computer, we're just too slow to do it inside one lifetime. So, we can write a program that will play chess nearly perfectly. We could also write a program that could analyze the moves made by a computer and print out the algorithm it is following. And then we could write another program that would devise a way to exploit some characteristics of that algorithm and gives us a victory.

Some people have spent years devising those top-ranked algorithms for chess. Might take some years to devise the analytic algorithms and the trickster algorithms as well. Considering the level of talent that's gone into the issue already, and how some computer vs. computer games have turned out, I think my thesis is proved that it's unlikely there is an unbeatable chess algorithm in existence, and maybe even unlikely that one can be produced.

but hey, it's just as likely that it's impossible for me to prove my opinion.