Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

Main

Date: 12 Dec 2004 10:59:27
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

I came across this article recently. Richard Moody Jr. of Berne, NY if you
are reading this could you post the game (surely a game of such experience
you must have its record still)?

Those with Chess Playing Programming know-how might want to check this out
at http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/03rm1.htm which gives the following
(just for the record)...
PARA NEWS :.

COMPUTER CHESS GAME PRODUCES A PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE
Posted July 9.03

Richard Moody Jr. of Berne, NY, relates the following experience he had
concerning an off-the-shelf chess computer he was using in 1988. It played
beyond World Championship level at 1-3 seconds per move for over 80-120
plies or half moves for an entire game. Richard says the computer gave him a
yardstick into its brain. It was calculating at a level over a trillion
times the level of Deep Junior, the strongest computer in existence.

I was a chess theoretician for about 15 years when I published my magnum
opus in 1999. One section of the book was on the Evans Gambit and I've
written a stand-alone book on the Evans as well. Sometime around 1988, I was
studying the Evans with the aid of a weak off-the-shelf computer called Par
Excellence. It plays nothing good at all at blitz speed i.e. 1-5
seconds/move. While studying the Evans, I ran out of ideas so I asked the
computer to make a move. It responded with a very good move. Next, I played
a few more moves and then asked the computer to make another move. It
responded with a very good move. Now, I was intrigued so I forced the
computer to play both sides at blitz speed. Instead of playing junk, which I
expected, it played beyond World Championship level chess. World class chess
has a certain look to it. The subtle handling of pawn tension or piece
tension, the way pressure is built and defused, the tactical accuracy and
the long-term strategies employed that suddenly make sense five moves after
they are played---all these allow one to distinguish between two Masters
versus two World Champions, and, bear in mind, this was all done at blitz
speed.

One of the first accomplishments that White achieved was to achieve
sufficient pressure to force Black to give up the minor exchange (it won the
Bishop for the Knight). Then White played the position like a semi-open
position i.e. one that favors the Bishop even though it wasn't a semi-open
position. White got so much pressure that out of nowhere, Black sacrificed a
pawn. I said to myself, "Aha, you stupid computer, at last I made you
blunder." Amazingly enough, White did not accept the pawn! This struck me as
offsetting blunders, so I had White continue for 6-8 moves. Nothing
happened. The pawn was still there. Then, I went back to the start where the
sacrifice should have been accepted, and I required the computer with White
to win the pawn. I waited for the axe to fall, meaning Black would regain
the pawn with advantage. Instead, 6 moves went by, then 8 and then 10 and
Black had not regained the pawn, but the Black Knights which had been kept
in check the entire game were now very active. Since Black had started out
the sequence with an extra pawn (this was a gambit opening), it just gave
back the pawn and stood better. I was amazed.

Next, I went back to the start of the sequence and allowed White to do what
it wanted to do so it maneuvered against the pawn for 15 moves, won it, and
did not allow counterplay. Deep Junior, the strongest computer in existence,
can only see three moves ahead in one second. My little computer was seeing
15 moves ahead at blitz speed or over a trillion times the level of
computation of Deep Junior.

After a series of exchanges, White emerged with Rook, Bishop, and connected
center pawns. Black had Rook, Knight and passed Rook pawns. White stepped
into the Queening square of the King Rook pawn with its King, blockaded the
Queen Rook pawn with its Bishop and rammed the center pawns home. When White
was about to Queen one of its pawns, Black sacrificed a Rook to stop it.
What is rekable about this ending is that White had to have known that
the Knight couldn't get to the passed pawns. If it could have, it would have
been a draw. Somehow, when entering the endgame, White had to have known
that that the Knight couldn't get to the pawns.

Richard, author of, 'Universal Chess The Search For Truth and Beauty', is of
the opinion, "that intuition travels beyond the speed of light and permits
us to communicate with the future. That is what I believe precognition is
(my father had it once or twice)", he says.

Date: 14 Dec 2004 09:40:22
From:
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I wanted to add a few quotes
about Morphy from the Wikipedia site:

"Morphy's principal strength does not rest upon his power of
combination but in his position play and his general style....Beginning
with la Bourdonnais to the present, and including Lasker, we find that
the greatest stylist has been Morphy. Whence the reason, although it
might not be the only one, why he is generally considered the greatest
of all." - former world chess champion Jose Raul Capablanca, in Pablo
Morphy by V. F. Coria and L. Palau.

"...Morphy, the master of all phases of the game, stronger than any of
his opponents, even the strongest of them..." - former world chess
champion Alexander Alekhine, in Shakmatny Vestnik, January 15, 1914

"...the greatest chess player that ever lived...no one ever was so far
superior to the players of his time" - former world chess champion
Emanuel Lasker, Lasker's Chess Magazine of January 1905

"...Morphy was stronger than anyone he played with, including
Anderssen" - former world champion Wilhelm Steinitz, International
Chess Magazine 1885.

"Morphy, I think everyone agrees, was probably the greatest of them
all." - former world chess champion Bobby Fischer

-Geof Strayer

Date: 14 Dec 2004 09:28:02
From:
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

Randy Bauer wrote:

[snip]

> There would be a level, probably somewhere in the master category,
where I would
> expect Morphy to at least have a battle and not win every game, at
least until
> he figured out some of the more sophisticated opening strategy.
There was much
> less understanding of closed defenses back then, and I suspect that
some of
> these could cause Morphy some problems. The French Defense strikes
me as a good
> choice, and an expert in that defense could pose him practical
difficulties.
> There are also recent defenses that might prove tricky for the
unfamiliar
> player. Wouldn't you be interested to see what would happen if you
actually
> ended up on the black side in a Benko Gambit Accepted?
>
> Randy Bauer

Well, I may have been exaggerating somewhat, as the assumptions in
some of the prior posts comparing Old Greats to modern A-players rather
shocked me. So Mr.Bauer is probably right about a modern master (at
least a very strong one) taking some games off of Morphy. I would
think that Morphy would probably play 1.e4 and avoid most of the
defenses to 1.d4 that were unknown in his time, but I certainly do
agree that he might have some problems on the white side of an opening
like the Benko against a modern master. In my opinion a truly modern
opening based on modern ideas like the Pirc and played by a theoretical
expert such as Mr. Baeur would be more dangerous to Morphy than a
French played by a semi-expert such as myself, as the Exchange
Variation of the French would avoid virtually all potential theoretical
problems and probably suit Morphy's style fairly well.

I have taken a quick look at some of the Morphy games available
online since my last post (which was written in the heat of the
moment), and I still think that he would score pretty heavily against
modern players such as Mr. Bauer and myself who are approximately of FM
strength. In a 10-game match, I would be very happy to take a couple of
points off of him, and wouldn't be surprised if I got shut out
completely. Morphy seemed to have an excellent "feel" for the openings
and for positional play in general, and his middlegame was extremely
strong. Notwitstanding giant strides in opening theory and defensive
technique, I think that in the vast majority of games he would just
out-tactic an FM-level player at some point. Particularly if he was
informed in advance that he was facing someone who knew a lot more
opening theory than he does (which would only be fair), and had the
opportunity to try to avoid such theory (by intentionally playing
inferior moves, for example).

But reasonable minds could certainly disagree about what strength a
modern master would need to be to give Morphy some problems. I don't
think reasonable minds can disagree about Morphy versus the
hypothetical 1900 ELO player. And I don't mean any disrespect to 1900
players, who are actually quite strong and who know a great deal about
chess compared to most players. It is simply that they aren't strong
enough to score points against someone of Morphy's caliber, and that is
really my only point.

- Geof Strayer

Date: 14 Dec 2004 14:26:47
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] says...
>
>Randy Bauer wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> There would be a level, probably somewhere in the master category,
>where I would
>> expect Morphy to at least have a battle and not win every game, at
>least until
>> he figured out some of the more sophisticated opening strategy.
>There was much
>> less understanding of closed defenses back then, and I suspect that
>some of
>> these could cause Morphy some problems. The French Defense strikes
>me as a good
>> choice, and an expert in that defense could pose him practical
>difficulties.
>> There are also recent defenses that might prove tricky for the
>unfamiliar
>> player. Wouldn't you be interested to see what would happen if you
>actually
>> ended up on the black side in a Benko Gambit Accepted?
>>
>> Randy Bauer
>
>
>Well, I may have been exaggerating somewhat, as the assumptions in
>some of the prior posts comparing Old Greats to modern A-players rather
>shocked me. So Mr.Bauer is probably right about a modern master (at
>least a very strong one) taking some games off of Morphy.

I think I'm closer to Mr. Strayer's opinion than it may have seemed. I think I
said that Morphy would have to at least work for his points, and I'm not sure
that I would expect it to be a game or two out of ten, definitely a smaller
percentage than that. However, we are in absolute agreement about the class A
player, who would end up as hamburger.

I would
>think that Morphy would probably play 1.e4 and avoid most of the
>defenses to 1.d4 that were unknown in his time, but I certainly do
>agree that he might have some problems on the white side of an opening
>like the Benko against a modern master. In my opinion a truly modern
>opening based on modern ideas like the Pirc and played by a theoretical
>expert such as Mr. Baeur would be more dangerous to Morphy than a
>French played by a semi-expert such as myself, as the Exchange
>Variation of the French would avoid virtually all potential theoretical
>problems and probably suit Morphy's style fairly well.

Actually, I thinking exactly of the exchange French when I was pondering this.
Unless Morphy goes in for the quick c2-c4 lines, I just don't see him getting
the kind of position he would want to play against a really strong proponent of
the French. Still, it's probably not a 2200 (or 2300) master we need here as
our champion, probably somebody more like solid 2400. Count me out, but I'll
bet we can find one.
>
>I have taken a quick look at some of the Morphy games available
>online since my last post (which was written in the heat of the
>moment), and I still think that he would score pretty heavily against
>modern players such as Mr. Bauer and myself who are approximately of FM
>strength. In a 10-game match, I would be very happy to take a couple of
>points off of him, and wouldn't be surprised if I got shut out
>completely. Morphy seemed to have an excellent "feel" for the openings
>and for positional play in general, and his middlegame was extremely
>strong. Notwitstanding giant strides in opening theory and defensive
>technique, I think that in the vast majority of games he would just
>out-tactic an FM-level player at some point. Particularly if he was
>informed in advance that he was facing someone who knew a lot more
>opening theory than he does (which would only be fair), and had the
>opportunity to try to avoid such theory (by intentionally playing
>inferior moves, for example).

It's one of those questions that's fun to ponder, probably because we can never
know. You're probably about right on the score and the potential outcome.

>
>But reasonable minds could certainly disagree about what strength a
>modern master would need to be to give Morphy some problems. I don't
>think reasonable minds can disagree about Morphy versus the
>hypothetical 1900 ELO player. And I don't mean any disrespect to 1900
>players, who are actually quite strong and who know a great deal about
>chess compared to most players. It is simply that they aren't strong
>enough to score points against someone of Morphy's caliber, and that is
>really my only point.
>
> - Geof Strayer

Sounds eminantly reasonable to me. Now, where were we in the discussion about
Capablanca?

Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer
>

Date: 14 Dec 2004 10:37:59
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

On 14 Dec 2004 09:28:02 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>In my opinion a truly modern
>opening based on modern ideas like the Pirc and played by a theoretical
>expert such as Mr. Baeur would be more dangerous to Morphy than a
>French played by a semi-expert such as myself,

Not strictly comparable, of course, but an interesting test would be
for you (or Bauer) to play Fritz with the opening book turned off,
starting from the Pirc position.

Date: 14 Dec 2004 14:12:27
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

In article <[email protected] >, Mike Murray says...
>
>On 14 Dec 2004 09:28:02 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>In my opinion a truly modern
>>opening based on modern ideas like the Pirc and played by a theoretical
>>expert such as Mr. Baeur would be more dangerous to Morphy than a
>>French played by a semi-expert such as myself,
>
>Not strictly comparable, of course, but an interesting test would be
>for you (or Bauer) to play Fritz with the opening book turned off,
>starting from the Pirc position.
>
That's an interesting proposition which I may try at some point. However, I am
not certain that the Pirc would be the opening I would want to discuss with
Morphy, even though I probably understand it better than just about any other
defense. I still would bank on the French Defense.

Randy Bauer

Date: 13 Dec 2004 15:08:54
From:
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

Without wanting to be mean to your hypothetical A-player, and
recognizing that such comparisons are fairly useless, I would imagine
that if Morphy was magically transported into our time with his
out-dated chess knowledge intact, he could play 1.h4 and 2.a4 as White
and 1...h5 and 2...a5 as Black and beat your hypothetical A-player 100
games out of 100. Probably, he could do this blindfold as well.

Morphy was at least 600 ELO points stronger tactically that your
hypothetical A-player, and with that big of a difference he could very
possibly give your A-player odds of a piece. In any event, the
hypothetical A-player is unlikely to get such a big advantage out of
his "superior" opening knowledge that Morphy could not swindle him or
her.

You are talking about a player who beat everyone of note in his time
period who would play him, and of whom Fischer once said something like
"he could beat anyone today in a set match" (possibly an exaggeration
but not an enormous exaggeration), and an A-player. Do you also think
that the hypothetical A-player would take the odd game off of
Capablanca?

I am considerably stronger than an A-player and I would expect Morphy
to beat me every game.

-Geof Strayer

Date: 14 Dec 2004 10:35:30
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

On 13 Dec 2004 15:08:54 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Without wanting to be mean to your hypothetical A-player, and
>recognizing that such comparisons are fairly useless, I would imagine
>that if Morphy was magically transported into our time with his
>out-dated chess knowledge intact, he could play 1.h4 and 2.a4 as White
>and 1...h5 and 2...a5 as Black and beat your hypothetical A-player 100
>games out of 100. Probably, he could do this blindfold as well.

My point in saying that Morphy might drop the odd game to an opening
trap was to emphasize his strength, i.e., to say this is the *only*
way a contemporary "A" player would beat him. A time traveling
Morphy, if made aware of his 1900-rated opponent's truckload of
memorized theory, could certainly adapt such a book avoidance
strategy.

>Morphy was at least 600 ELO points stronger tactically that your
>hypothetical A-player, and with that big of a difference he could very
>possibly give your A-player odds of a piece.

You're right, of course, but starting the game giving odds of a piece
is a whole different ballgame than the position resulting from
*losing* a piece.

> In any event, the
>hypothetical A-player is unlikely to get such a big advantage out of
>his "superior" opening knowledge that Morphy could not swindle him or
>her.

Good point. Consider the famous game from 1958 where Fischer caught
Reshevsky in an opening trap: 1 e4 c5 2 Ne2 Nc6 3 Nbc3 g6 4 d4 cxd4 5
Nxd4 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 Bc4 0-0 8 Bb3 Na5?! 9 e5 Ne8? 10 Bxf7! Kxf7 11
Ne6! dxe6 12 Qxd8. Reshevsky didn't resign and held out for a long
time. Would he actually have recovered enough against an "A" player
to swindle him and win? Quite likely, but I don't think one could
count on it.

Or suppose Morphy was imprudent enough to enter the rat's nest after 1
e4 e5, 2 Nf3 f5, 3 Bc4 against the 1900 who had made a hobby of this
line. Sure, he'd still win most of the time, but there's a fair
chance he might sac a bunch of material and then find the mate just
wasn't there.

>You are talking about a player who beat everyone of note in his time
>period who would play him, and of whom Fischer once said something like
>"he could beat anyone today in a set match" (possibly an exaggeration
>but not an enormous exaggeration), and an A-player. Do you also think
>that the hypothetical A-player would take the odd game off of
>Capablanca?

>I am considerably stronger than an A-player and I would expect Morphy
>to beat me every game.
>
> -Geof Strayer

Date: 14 Dec 2004 07:31:43
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] says...
>
>Without wanting to be mean to your hypothetical A-player, and
>recognizing that such comparisons are fairly useless, I would imagine
>that if Morphy was magically transported into our time with his
>out-dated chess knowledge intact, he could play 1.h4 and 2.a4 as White
>and 1...h5 and 2...a5 as Black and beat your hypothetical A-player 100
>games out of 100. Probably, he could do this blindfold as well.
>
>Morphy was at least 600 ELO points stronger tactically that your
>hypothetical A-player, and with that big of a difference he could very
>possibly give your A-player odds of a piece. In any event, the
>hypothetical A-player is unlikely to get such a big advantage out of
>his "superior" opening knowledge that Morphy could not swindle him or
>her.

Agreed. It's rare that a game between class players is decided on the basis of
mastery of the opening phase of the game. If so, it is generally because of
gross blunders by the weaker player, and Morphy would not be likely to make
those kinds of mistakes.

>You are talking about a player who beat everyone of note in his time
>period who would play him, and of whom Fischer once said something like
>"he could beat anyone today in a set match" (possibly an exaggeration
>but not an enormous exaggeration), and an A-player. Do you also think
>that the hypothetical A-player would take the odd game off of
>Capablanca?
>
>I am considerably stronger than an A-player and I would expect Morphy
>to beat me every game.
>
> -Geof Strayer

There would be a level, probably somewhere in the master category, where I would
expect Morphy to at least have a battle and not win every game, at least until
he figured out some of the more sophisticated opening strategy. There was much
less understanding of closed defenses back then, and I suspect that some of
these could cause Morphy some problems. The French Defense strikes me as a good
choice, and an expert in that defense could pose him practical difficulties.
There are also recent defenses that might prove tricky for the unfamiliar
player. Wouldn't you be interested to see what would happen if you actually
ended up on the black side in a Benko Gambit Accepted?

Randy Bauer

Date: 13 Dec 2004 05:30:10
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

Mike Murray:

MM > why should we listen to his opinions
MM > about computers, intuition and precognition?

Taylor Kingston:

TK > Second that. I would not lend this any more
TK > credence than the story, a few years ago,
TK > about oczy's ghost playing Korchnoi.

The endgame was fascinating.

Hey guys, sit down, relax,
and enjoy the spectacle.

Regards,

Wlod

Date: 12 Dec 2004 09:04:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

Mike Murray wrote:
> Fabricated the *experience* ? Not necessarily. But he puffed his
> credentials beyond all sense of proportion. You don't have "chess
> theoreticians" of class B strength. There is no way he would be able
> to evaluate whether a toy computer played at World Championship
> strength, as he claims. This is way over a 1695 player's head.
>
> Now, given this, why should we listen to his opinions about
computers,
> intuition and precognition?

Second that. I would not lend this any more credence than the story,
a few years ago, about oczy's ghost playing Korchnoi.

Date: 12 Dec 2004 13:49:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

Few Good Chessmen <[email protected] > wrote:
> COMPUTER CHESS GAME PRODUCES A PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE
> Posted July 9.03
>
> Richard Moody Jr. of Berne, NY, relates the following experience he had
> concerning an off-the-shelf chess computer he was using in 1988. It
> played beyond World Championship level at 1-3 seconds per move for over
> 80-120 plies or half moves for an entire game.

No it didn't. It happened to find the right moves in an Evans Gambit
game. Since such games tend to be very tactical and forcing (which is
where computers excel), this is not so surprising and certainly not a
candidate for paranormality...

> Richard says the computer gave him a yardstick into its brain. It was
> calculating at a level over a trillion times the level of Deep Junior,
> the strongest computer in existence.

Moody asserts that, because this `Par Excellence' computer didn't accept
an offer of a sacrificed pawn but won the pawn back fifteen moves later,
it must have been looking at least thirty ply ahead in a couple of
seconds. This is nonsense: it seems much more likely that white saw that
accepting the pawn would lead to an immediate worsening of its position,
but that the refutation of black's plan was over the horizon. Also note
that he never claims that Deep Junior plays worse moves in the position;
he just claims that it can only see to three ply in a second.

The claim that the computer was playing `beyond World Championship level'
is, er, interesting, coming from an author who is, himself, so far below
that level.

Details of Moody's book on the Evans Gambit can be found at

http://www.niggemann.com/detaul/buecher/2448.html

Dave.

--
David Richerby Adult Dictator (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ totalitarian leader that you won't
want the children to see!

Date: 13 Dec 2004 11:11:49
From: Shaun Press
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

David Richerby wrote:
<snip >
>
> Details of Moody's book on the Evans Gambit can be found at
>
> http://www.niggemann.com/detaul/buecher/2448.html
>
>
> Dave.
>

I think this is the book that got one of the harshest reviews I have
ever seen in a chess magazine. In one of the British chess publications
(British Chess Magazine or Chess Monthly) it was discribed as "garbage"
or maybe even "worthless garbage".

Date: 13 Dec 2004 11:54:28
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

Shaun Press <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Details of Moody's book on the Evans Gambit can be found at
>>
>> http://www.niggemann.com/detaul/buecher/2448.html
>
> I think this is the book that got one of the harshest reviews I have
> ever seen in a chess magazine. In one of the British chess publications
> (British Chess Magazine or Chess Monthly) it was discribed as "garbage"
> or maybe even "worthless garbage".

:-) The only reviews I can find on the web are fairly positive but most
of them are from people trying to sell copies of the book!

Dave.

--
David Richerby Mouldy Poetic Painting (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a Renaissance masterpiece but it's in
verse and starting to grow mushrooms!

Date: 12 Dec 2004 08:14:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

On 12 Dec 2004 13:49:03 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:

>The claim that the computer was playing `beyond World Championship level'
>is, er, interesting, coming from an author who is, himself, so far below
>that level.
>
>
>Details of Moody's book on the Evans Gambit can be found at
>
> http://www.niggemann.com/detaul/buecher/2448.html

Well, I'll be damned. Chess Digest published it. OK, what's the
story? Have I got the wrong "Moody"?

>
>
>Dave.

Date: 12 Dec 2004 00:49:57
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:59:27 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>I came across this article recently. Richard Moody Jr. of Berne, NY if you
>are reading this could you post the game (surely a game of such experience
>you must have its record still)?

>Those with Chess Playing Programming know-how might want to check this out
>at http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/03rm1.htm which gives the following
>(just for the record)...
>PARA NEWS :.

>COMPUTER CHESS GAME PRODUCES A PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE
>Posted July 9.03

>Richard Moody Jr. of Berne, NY, relates the following experience he had
>concerning an off-the-shelf chess computer he was using in 1988. It played
>beyond World Championship level at 1-3 seconds per move for over 80-120
>plies or half moves for an entire game. Richard says the computer gave him a
>yardstick into its brain. It was calculating at a level over a trillion
>times the level of Deep Junior, the strongest computer in existence.

>I was a chess theoretician for about 15 years when I published my magnum
>opus in 1999. One section of the book was on the Evans Gambit and I've
>written a stand-alone book on the Evans as well.

Richard Moody of NY is rated 1695. A "magnum opus" and stand-alone
book on the Evans Gambit ? Where is it sold?

Date: 12 Dec 2004 18:06:20
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:59:27 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I came across this article recently. Richard Moody Jr. of Berne, NY if
you
> >are reading this could you post the game (surely a game of such
experience
> >you must have its record still)?
>
> >Those with Chess Playing Programming know-how might want to check this
out
> >at http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/03rm1.htm which gives the
following
> >(just for the record)...
> >PARA NEWS :.
>
> >COMPUTER CHESS GAME PRODUCES A PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE
> >Posted July 9.03
>
> >Richard Moody Jr. of Berne, NY, relates the following experience he had
> >concerning an off-the-shelf chess computer he was using in 1988. It
played
> >beyond World Championship level at 1-3 seconds per move for over 80-120
> >plies or half moves for an entire game. Richard says the computer gave
him a
> >yardstick into its brain. It was calculating at a level over a trillion
> >times the level of Deep Junior, the strongest computer in existence.
>
> >I was a chess theoretician for about 15 years when I published my magnum
> >opus in 1999. One section of the book was on the Evans Gambit and I've
> >written a stand-alone book on the Evans as well.
>
> Richard Moody of NY is rated 1695. A "magnum opus" and stand-alone
> book on the Evans Gambit ? Where is it sold?

I have not checked the availability of the publications nor his latest
rating but are you implying he fabricated the experience?

Date: 12 Dec 2004 08:01:23
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:06:20 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>> >I was a chess theoretician for about 15 years when I published my magnum
>> >opus in 1999. One section of the book was on the Evans Gambit and I've
>> >written a stand-alone book on the Evans as well.

>> Richard Moody of NY is rated 1695. A "magnum opus" and stand-alone
>> book on the Evans Gambit ? Where is it sold?

>I have not checked the availability of the publications nor his latest
>rating but are you implying he fabricated the experience?

You can view his latest rating on the USCF web site.

There would be negligible ket for a book on opening theory written
by a 1695 player, so I'm wondering who published the book. Certainly,
he could have gone the route of the vanity press or self-publiishing.

Fabricated the *experience* ? Not necessarily. But he puffed his
credentials beyond all sense of proportion. You don't have "chess
theoreticians" of class B strength. There is no way he would be able
to evaluate whether a toy computer played at World Championship
strength, as he claims. This is way over a 1695 player's head.

Now, given this, why should we listen to his opinions about computers,
intuition and precognition?

Date: 13 Dec 2004 01:45:32
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:06:20 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >I was a chess theoretician for about 15 years when I published my
magnum
> >> >opus in 1999. One section of the book was on the Evans Gambit and I've
> >> >written a stand-alone book on the Evans as well.
>
> >> Richard Moody of NY is rated 1695. A "magnum opus" and stand-alone
> >> book on the Evans Gambit ? Where is it sold?
>
> >I have not checked the availability of the publications nor his latest
> >rating but are you implying he fabricated the experience?
>
> You can view his latest rating on the USCF web site.

I suppose this is only applicable for active Chess Players only.

>
> There would be negligible ket for a book on opening theory written
> by a 1695 player, so I'm wondering who published the book. Certainly,
> he could have gone the route of the vanity press or self-publiishing.
>
> Fabricated the *experience* ? Not necessarily. But he puffed his
> credentials beyond all sense of proportion. You don't have "chess
> theoreticians" of class B strength. There is no way he would be able
> to evaluate whether a toy computer played at World Championship
> strength, as he claims. This is way over a 1695 player's head.

I'm not quite agree with this arguments since if by todays standard of Chess
Rating there wouldn't be strong acceptance of any Chess Theoreticians of
classical era (Meaning the Old Masters should be rated below 1900 at present
scale). Leaving a small portion of Chess Players rated over 2000 understood
(therefore preferred) better of Modern (or New) Chess Theories.

He spented 15 years studying Chess Theories before publishing his magnum
opus and I reckon that must worth something to ponder on...

>
> Now, given this, why should we listen to his opinions about computers,
> intuition and precognition?

I suppect the game lasted around 30 moves or so and his rek "that
intuition travels beyond the speed of light and permits us to communicate
with the future" caught my attention with the ability of this computer (You
must admit the surpise conclusion made for the Endgame) when compared with
present ones. Pity there was no Game Record along with the article.

Date: 12 Dec 2004 10:42:01
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:45:32 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>> You can view his latest rating on the USCF web site.

>I suppose this is only applicable for active Chess Players only.

No, they retain your rating indefinitely. For players active
recently, they record the highest level that player attained.

>> There would be negligible ket for a book on opening theory written
>> by a 1695 player, so I'm wondering who published the book. Certainly,
>> he could have gone the route of the vanity press or self-publiishing.

Since I posted this comment, David Richerby has pointed to a site
which indicates Chess Digest published Moody's book on the Evans
Gambit, which comes as a surprise to me. Maybe somebody can provide
additional background on this.

Certainly, a Class B player could compile collections of games,
articles, and annotations, and clerically integrate this stuff into a
book. But, without consultation with one or more much stronger
players, this B player couldn't be expected to add value (evaluations,
alternate suggestions, etc.) to the compilation.

>> Fabricated the *experience* ? Not necessarily. But he puffed his
>> credentials beyond all sense of proportion. You don't have "chess
>> theoreticians" of class B strength. There is no way he would be able
>> to evaluate whether a toy computer played at World Championship
>> strength, as he claims. This is way over a 1695 player's head.

>I'm not quite agree with this arguments since if by todays standard of Chess
>Rating there wouldn't be strong acceptance of any Chess Theoreticians of
>classical era (Meaning the Old Masters should be rated below 1900 at present
>scale). Leaving a small portion of Chess Players rated over 2000 understood
>(therefore preferred) better of Modern (or New) Chess Theories.

Ratings measure past performance against peers and can be used to
predict future performance against same. Saying that Morphy or
Philidor would have an "x" rating if plopped into contemporary chess
practice is speculative at best. Based on his games, I believe a
time-traveling Morphy might drop the odd game to an opening trap, but
would kick contemporary 1900-rated players' butts.

>He spented 15 years studying Chess Theories before publishing his magnum
>opus and I reckon that must worth something to ponder on...

For evaluating the worth of a publication? It doesn't mean much to me
unless the person doing the studying has the expertise to make such
study of value.

Date: 13 Dec 2004 07:50:56
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:45:32 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You can view his latest rating on the USCF web site.
>
> >I suppose this is only applicable for active Chess Players only.
>
> No, they retain your rating indefinitely. For players active
> recently, they record the highest level that player attained.

Then the question remains at when was his last rated game (I left the time
he spend studying his Chess Theories alone and with the aids of computer).

>
> >> There would be negligible ket for a book on opening theory written
> >> by a 1695 player, so I'm wondering who published the book. Certainly,
> >> he could have gone the route of the vanity press or self-publiishing.
>
> Since I posted this comment, David Richerby has pointed to a site
> which indicates Chess Digest published Moody's book on the Evans
> Gambit, which comes as a surprise to me. Maybe somebody can provide
> additional background on this.
>
> Certainly, a Class B player could compile collections of games,
> articles, and annotations, and clerically integrate this stuff into a
> book. But, without consultation with one or more much stronger
> players, this B player couldn't be expected to add value (evaluations,
> alternate suggestions, etc.) to the compilation.
>
> >> Fabricated the *experience* ? Not necessarily. But he puffed his
> >> credentials beyond all sense of proportion. You don't have "chess
> >> theoreticians" of class B strength. There is no way he would be able
> >> to evaluate whether a toy computer played at World Championship
> >> strength, as he claims. This is way over a 1695 player's head.
>
> >I'm not quite agree with this arguments since if by todays standard of
Chess
> >Rating there wouldn't be strong acceptance of any Chess Theoreticians of
> >classical era (Meaning the Old Masters should be rated below 1900 at
present
> >scale). Leaving a small portion of Chess Players rated over 2000
understood
> >(therefore preferred) better of Modern (or New) Chess Theories.
>
> Ratings measure past performance against peers and can be used to
> predict future performance against same. Saying that Morphy or
> Philidor would have an "x" rating if plopped into contemporary chess
> practice is speculative at best. Based on his games, I believe a
> time-traveling Morphy might drop the odd game to an opening trap, but
> would kick contemporary 1900-rated players' butts.

I doubt this analogy can be true at all since Morphy was not famous soley by
his odd games or openning traps.

>
> >He spented 15 years studying Chess Theories before publishing his magnum
> >opus and I reckon that must worth something to ponder on...
>
> For evaluating the worth of a publication? It doesn't mean much to me
> unless the person doing the studying has the expertise to make such
> study of value.

You just agreed time-traveling Old Masters would give contemporary 1900
rated Chess Players some headache but devalued their expertise in doing so.
Whereas I'm only trying to ascertain what value of Chess Theories were put
into the publication. I think you judge the book by its cover type...

Date: 12 Dec 2004 18:08:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:50:56 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Then the question remains at when was his last rated game (I left the time
>he spend studying his Chess Theories alone and with the aids of computer).

His last rated tournament was the New York State Class Championships,
in October of 1997, where he played in the B Class and placed next to
last with a score of 1-5. However, he only *played* one game, so it
looks like he filled in for a drop-out. He played in some other
tournaments that year also.

So, it appears he earned his Class B rating well after he spent his
fifteen years as a "theoretician".

Date: 12 Dec 2004 18:03:15
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:50:56 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>> ...Based on his games, I believe a
>> time-traveling Morphy might drop the odd game to an opening trap, but
>> would kick contemporary 1900-rated players' butts.

>I doubt this analogy can be true at all since Morphy was not famous soley by
>his odd games or openning traps.

"Drop the odd game" means "Drop the occasional game". And I meant, he
might well fall into some of the more subtle book traps devised since
his time and lose to an A player that way, but otherwise, he'd cream
the A-player.

Date: 13 Dec 2004 11:04:57
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:50:56 +0800, "Few Good Chessmen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> ...Based on his games, I believe a
> >> time-traveling Morphy might drop the odd game to an opening trap, but
> >> would kick contemporary 1900-rated players' butts.
>
> >I doubt this analogy can be true at all since Morphy was not famous soley
by
> >his odd games or openning traps.
>
> "Drop the odd game" means "Drop the occasional game". And I meant, he
> might well fall into some of the more subtle book traps devised since
> his time and lose to an A player that way, but otherwise, he'd cream
> the A-player.

Morphy falls into subtle book traps of present days (What's the maximum
setup moves for all known traps)? No likely. Traps are easily seem by any
good Positional Chess Player.

Date: 12 Dec 2004 23:31:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Computer Chess Game produces a paranormal experience?

Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Certainly, a Class B player could compile collections of games,
> articles, and annotations, and clerically integrate this stuff into a
> book. But, without consultation with one or more much stronger
> players, this B player couldn't be expected to add value (evaluations,
> alternate suggestions, etc.) to the compilation.

That's why he turned to the chess computer that was channeling the spirit
of Captain Evans, I suppose.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Flammable Robot (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-tech robot but it burns
really easily and it's moist!