Thanks Robert.Robert Flesher wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:My advice to you would be to play 20-30 games against engines per night instead of 5-10, and you will see with time it is not that impossible to play decently against even the top.Robert Flesher wrote:M ANSARI wrote:[size=24]If you want to be taken seriously, why not have a controlled match against one of the top engines in controlled conditions.[/size] Sorry to say, but your claim that you can regularly beat these engines smells a little ... especially seeing how doggedly you defended Ivanov in his obvious cheating scandal where he was using computer help in his games. Maybe you both have something in common ... not the cheating part of course ... but you know ... the mysterious,yet incredible ability to play the game of chess at a level not yet understood by other mortal human beings. Please let us setup a match between you and any engine ... no need big hardware ... any desktop will do. Put the conditions up and I am sure a lot of people would be interested in observing how you crush these digital monsters. Kramnik, Carlsen, Anand, Aronian, Nakaumura ... all these guys will probably want a front row seat! I don't count Kasparov as he is retired and your immense talent would probably go right over his headI think it is about time that the world discovered your incredible abilities!
+1
But this will never occur, we all know that.
Amused regards,
The guy who still loses to the top engines.
My controlled conditions would be airtight playing room (so no noise there), just me and the computer, you check the human for whatever cheating devices you suppose she might be using, you install some cameras that inspect the room and the behaviour of the human player, but none of the available technical equipment should not be noisy (for example loud computer fans), and then you start playing.
You can not even imagine the amount of mental energy humans are gaining if able to play in optimal quiet, undisturbed playing conditions. It is like tripling, quadrupling, etc. the power of a computer, and you know there is some effect with this in terms of strength. It is a known fact that humans use 10% of their mental energy, and so do chess players when facing each other or engines. Where do the other 90% go? I will tell you. For example, you play a tournament somewhere. 10% go to not able to concentrate deep enough because the noise level is higher than necessary. 10% go to the toll of getting accustomed to all kinds of external disturbances, for example the referee indicating something or 2 players on the next table quarreling about something. 10% go to putting up with the psychological pressure of facing your opponent: instead of thinking only about the game position, you also think if it would be possible to win the game and how difficult that would be. Another 10% go to the fight with your inner self, when you are uncertain of your own capabilitities, and that happens sometimes. And of course, another 10% go to taking the occasional look at beautiful ladies in the playing hall (if present).
When you do the maths, 90% of your mental energy is gone to doing something else different from thinking on the game itself. I.e., human chess players are using in general only about 10% of the time allocated to the game for thinking strictly on the game position. Of course, they underperform. Now, when you are not distracted by the noise, opponents, internal fights, beautiful ladies, etc., you have suddenly 90% more thinking time! That certainly makes a difference. That is why a human player to be able to successfully play against the engines, needs airtight room. But he will also have to learn to take advantage of the available more quiet, move to the background any psychological tensions, etc. Nothing surprising there, it is as if a computer had only one or multiple cores. Do you notice the difference?
For myself, I can tell you one thing: I am relatively very weak, from time to time have my psychological problems, like everyone else, so that I am unable to play good chess whenever and wherever, but, I have observed that in quiet conditions with a minimum number of disturbances (usually it is difficult to eradicate them all) I play unimaginably better than when playing in noisy conditions with many external disturbances (which unfortunately happens quite frequently).
So that my point was that I myself am unable to do well against chess opponents under normal conditions, but there certainly are human players that are much better than me in terms of the level of chess, are more psychologically stable, have more stamina, etc., and the only thing they would need in order to perform successfully against top engines is learn to use their mental energy in quiet conditions, prepare well with some anticomputer strategy, and find a way to dissipate any existing psychological tensions. It is certainly pssible to do this, I am trying (mostly unsuccessfully, as there is always something in life that will prevent you to do so) to do this occasionally, but there certainly are humans that are much more talented than me, much more psychologically stable that would be able to compete even against the top engines.
I mean no offense, but after reading what you posted. I surmise that the prose of which I enlarged above, is all I can believe to be true. However, if you were using subtle humor, lol, then I retract my previous statement.
I also make my quick or lasting judgements about people, but I never would do to ironise or offend them. It seems to me that you deliberately enlarged the words 'more talented' and 'psychologically stable' to a font that is probably 20-something. No, I did not use subtle humour in no way at all - I mean you need silence to perform well. You do not need silence if you are cutting wood, building houses, etc.; but if you would like to play chess on a good level - you need silence.
Should I also remind you that Fischer was oftened labelled as psychologically unstable, but it is him who insisted on good playing conditions, it is him who often required very quiet conditions, it is him who trained during the night to concentrate better. (and btw., he says somewhere 'I like the quiet of the night, it helps me to concentrate better)'. And it is him who is probably the best chess player ever.
No offence there, but I would like to follow into the example of Fischer, rather than other people. He left many outstanding games, compared to him other players left almost nothing.
