i beat rybka 2 times today there were also 2 loses ill give rybka credit due
Are you serious irvstein1? I am proud of you. So, you are making progress in your quest fro dethroning the monster as the best chess player in the planet. Do you still want to continue with that match? :)
As it turns out I do have weights and a kickbag in my garage and still use them BUT prefer to go to the gym lmao ...
I might be guessing but I reckon most here think irvstein1 is yanking our chain :) ... Prove me wrong, I am sure many here will play you in an engine room somewhere ... I will be impressed if you can do what many IMs and GMs cannot :)
>>>and began to win or draw most of his games
this will simply never happen, because the level of chess engines is higher than human capability.
That means you will loose for ever.
The thing is, you don't know what "human capability" and "high level chess at 3000 ELO" means.
Put it simpler, what you say is:
imagine you start running 100m competitions only against sport cars... you do it 10 000... 100 000 times, until you push so hard, you start eventually winning...
Concentrate! Beleave in yourself! DO it!
Larry, play rybka3 for the next few months: you can study is opening book, tactics etc. but, use this as your only means of chess preparation for the senior world championship. we can let your result speak for itself as to the quality of rybka preparation.
Anyway, it only works from high to low. For example, I can fairly reliably predict that a 2100 player is of at least above average intelligence but I can't assume that a 110 rated player is an idiot. The 110 player may have just learned chess or put little study into it. It's similar in school. I can generally assume that an excellent student is of above average intelligence, but I can't be sure that a terrible student is not. It just hasn't been demonstrated that he is. This example may be stretched since until college, being an excellent student in school requires far less extra intelligence and far more discipline and hard work. Of course, the problem with all this is actually defining intelligence. I don't think IQ tests are accurate enough, but I also don't think it matters to put a number on intelligence.
And this is a related technique to how you could handle evaluation weigths as there was a discussion about before.
I have had first hand experience of profoundly gifted children. The most extreme case I had encountered is a 5 year (now 6 year) old boy who has extreme ability for mathematics and numbers. The very first question I asked him when I meet him was to calculate 36 x 12345679 (8 missing). I expected that he would need a pen and paper but he answer 444444444 without hesitation. He could read when he was 2 and there is no doubt that he has a very hight IQ though his ability is so extreme that all tests he had fails to capture his gift (the maths questions in kids IQ tests are just too easy). Maybe the most impressive feat of this boy was that he by pure mental calculations discovered that:
1/37=0.0270270270270........ and that 1/27=0.0370370370.....
I think that he (with the right coaching) could become some kind of mathematical Magnus Carlsen. I have also been involved in coaching (only briefly) a boy who later became a GM, and has been teaching mathematics to gifted children. I am agree with the scientists in the quote above. The notion of a general intelligence is somewhat misguided. I think that that there are a number of distinct abilities that are relatively independent. I once meet a very interesting guy. He was hopeless in chess, and mathematics (though he tried hard), but to my surprise he had a very deep view and was a natural philosopher. I agree that "God's" gifts are not distributed fairly, but I think the notion of "general" intelligence is a pre-scientific notion that brain researchers eventually will be replaced by a much more nuanced picture.
The first part:
36*12345679 is too hard so let try 9*12345679 and multiply it by 4
it is easy to calculate the last thing by head and see that you get 111111111 and multiplying by 4 is also easy.
there are 2 ways to calculate 9*12345679 one is direct calculation and the other is simply substracting
123456790 minus 12345679(the first substraction is 1 and you need to reduce 1 from 9 and later it is easy to see that all substractions give 1 when you need to reduce nothing and I could think about it without pen and paper)
Note that I could think about it after seeing the result and after knowing that the result is 444444444 it was easy to think that you need to multiply only by 9.
It could be harder to do the same without knowing the result before the exercise but it is also possible.
I wonder if the child used the way that I suggest or maybe he simply calculated fast 12345679*30 and 12345679*6 to add them.
The second part seems to be easier for me:
I know that 1/9 is 0.11111111
dividing it by 3 is dividing 111 by 3 and it gives 37 so we get
It is easy to see that 27*37=999
It means that 0.027027027...*37=0.999 when 999 repeats and it is easy to see that 0.9999999.... is 1.
It also means that 1/37=0.027027027....
>He wrote a book that included all kinds of tricks and rules for doing arithmetic quickly
There are a few books in this genre. There is also a book on the calculators themselves. One of my profs in college was actually a mental whiz like this - in fact, he made an infomercial to huck his MatheMagics (or something) series (undergrads were paid minimum wage to sit in the audience and act excited on cue).
>while he was whiling away his time in a concentration camp
Similarly, more than one famous chess problemist has been employed in some job such as a fire lookout on a remote mountain.
>Did you ever hear of a guy by the name of Trachtenberg?
No, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trachtenberg_system
I then asked him if he wanted to know what I like about the 37 table. When I then told him that I like that 3 x 37 is 111 he was almost in extacy and agreed that his was also why he liked this table so much. From taking to him about his "method" I realized that is was clear to him that 9 x 12345679 is 111111111 since he already knew that 3 x 12345679=37037037 (not quite sure how knowing the 37 table helps here). I am impressed that he within the next split second realized that 36x12345679=4x111111111=444444444.
What I think the boy has in common with chess prodigies is an extreme memory helping to buildup a huge "database" of patterns and relationships. Most of us will just be able to calculate the numbers slowly and would need pen and paper, because our memory for relevant patterns would be next to zero.
To make a comparison with chess I think its maybe best to consider bullet chess since in this chess form there is no time for real calculations and everything is essentially pure pattern recognition. An ordinary chess player who plays bullet chess will see a few basic themes like if any piece is enprise or which piece next to develop. I am convinced that when a top 2600+ player plays bullet chess, each position on the board in a split second tickers a much more vivid relationship between patterns. An ordinary player might think something like "next develop bishop to g5 to pin knight at f6" while a the gifted chess player will have a much more detailed feeling for the position. In a split second the player will "see" the answer and memory and pattern recognition plays in my view an important role in this.
But this doesn't contradict that you can define 7 or 8 different kinds of intelligence and use them in pedagogics a la Gardner. Neither does it deny studying the lower order factors and try to produde a more "nuanced" theory. And it could be that geniuses tend to have an extreme talent in only one or a few of the lower factors, I don't know, but the 'g' tells that ability normally comes across the whole field.
On the same page as your quote there is a very good analogy with human 'size'. Saying 'g' is a myth is like saying there is only a myth that humans have different 'size' and that you instead should look at each finger and part of the body.
Well, big humans tend to have both long fingers and big feet. On next level you may find factor clusters 'length' and 'thickness' and then finger length and toe length etc, but this is no contradiction.
Now I feel too off-topic so I stop here... but I think it is interesting to note that this 'g'- statistical problem is related to that of evaluation functions :-)
The problem with intelligence is that you can´t see them.
Tell me a person, who showed much evidence of great intelligence and I tell you he/she is a bluffer!
I think, Carl Friedrich and Bobby wouldn´t be so much interested in small talk (or interview) with me. And after the interview I may have my preferences but this has nothing to do with the question, who is the more intelligent one or the one with the higher IQ. You have to look to their work and then you can decide (maybe)!
Last: Conformism isn´t the benchmark for IQ!
I always thought this was Rybkas main advantage as well, the much more optimized selectivity...
> this simply cannot be taught but is a gift you are born with
I agree! Their ability is 80-90% genotypical and 20-10% phenotypical, I believe.
That tiny difference in genetics can make a huge difference.
Meanwhile, it should be very obvious that someone with an IQ below 85 is not going to become a super grandmaster. This may sound like a random number, but it accounts for 16% of the people in the world. For that matter, I would guess that nobody rated over 2500 has an IQ of below 100, while meanwhile, people with IQs below 100 account for 50% of the world's population. The same goes for theoretical physicists. This should not be difficult to understand.
1st example, The Polgar sisters, and their father Laszlo, whose rigorious training methodology turned each of his children into chess prodigies. Perhaps this was partially due to good genetics as some would believe here, but I agree with Laszlo, it was probably more educational exposure and pattern memorization than anything else that got them to where they stand today. Speaking of genetics, their father was only a modest chessplayer and believed that genius is taught not inherited as his test seem to prove though how conclusive genetics vs training was in his case we will never be sure since it is unknown how they would have turned out had he done nothing.
2nd example, This one was on the front cover of discover awhile ago an article on chess masters and their ability to calculate concrete variations quickly as opposed to the amateur. It was found through testing brain activity while actively engauging in chess positions that the chess masters used a part of the brain which had more to do with memory, pattern recognition while the amateurs who could calculate about as deep but not as accurately depended more on a different part of the brain relying more on decision making... This discovery proved that in the study, masters were simply relying on the memories of past positions/patterns to come about correct variations with little actual calculation while the amateur had to work it all out from scratch i.e. kind of like trying to build a house without any formal training hense the moral of this story is you can't do anything quickly or accurately without experience.
In your first example with the Polgar sisters, these are people who are already very intelligent, and it has been said that Sofia may even have an IQ in the 150-160 range. I have heard that Judit's is in the 120's or 130's. You can figure that Susan's is probably somewhere between the two, especially since first-borns tend to have higher IQs. The Polgar sisters are good examples of both nature AND nurture playing significant roles.
The polgar sisters also prove nothing because they are not random childs but childs of the same parents.
> The polgar sisters also prove nothing because they are not random childs but childs of the same parents.
Better information might have been gained if two of the Polgar sisters were identical twins and one of them taught chess early and the other not, as it is, we have no control case.
I expect the sister that does not learn chess not to play chess and we can learn nothing from it.
The main question is if there are significant differences between people who get the same education and invest the same time.
>IQ proves nothing because it is possible that the same education that help you to become grandmaster also improves your IQ.
Possible, but it won't be much, and we could be dealing with selection effects. You have made a stronger statement in this post than you made elsewhere in this thread, so I'm replying here, too.
>The polgar sisters also prove nothing because they are not random childs but childs of the same parents.
I was making a similar point in my reply, with a different (additional) reason.
2: With training, the brain selects what matters out of almost infinite possibilities. Stronger players will obviously narrow down their focus to better choices. This is true outside of chess too but does not prove much. Creating and recognizing the hundreds of thousands of patterns necessary to correctly select what is important is a key aspect of chess strength and intelligence. A more intelligent person will usually look for shortcuts and apply past experience and patterns to be more efficient. For example, 100! can be solved by brute force but a clever person will look for the easier way. Moreover, a lot of training is necessary to reach such skill and I doubt that most players are capable of responding to it to such a high level. I've seen too much evidence for this to believe otherwise.
You have proven it? And you think intelligence is heritable?
PS: I´m not convinced! Please don´t answer. I know this kind of discussion.
get the right education.
people(including people with IQ 80-100) usually do not try to improve their IQ by at least 20 points and the way that I can suggest to do it is simply to solve IQ tests and understand the solutions and repeat this again and again including trying to solve questions that you already saw the solutions to them but you do not remember the solutions.
Another point is that bigger IQ and better chess playing strength may be result of other factors like food or vitamins that help you to have a better memory.
For me, the ambition to play chess has nothing to do with intelligence. And in the chess world we see the same stuff than in the other world. Why should an intelligent person go to chess? And I´m absolutely sure that we have GM´s with IQ < 110 (where we have accountants with IQ > 130).
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill