Dead Man's Chess

[Ashles]

Fairly simply? The "mundane reasons" pose a lot of questions.

A lot less than the alternatives.

I didn't complain when the explanation was GIVEN. I complained when it was written off as "easy to do" and now "fairly simple".

Relatively speaking it is. A lot of posters here have read a lot about hoaxes (particularly with a paranormal bent), and also how magicians create their illusions.

Nobody is forcing you to post anything. You could "save a lot of time" by not even responding.

I am just trying to let you know that the type of story you are posting requires more evidence and more likelihood of actually having something paranormal going on, otherwise you will receive many responses such as you have.
Attmpting to dismiss them as the result of a primarily materialistic based mind-set isn't really going to convince anyone of anything.

Like I say we have encountered many similar posters before, often with some kind of degree in philosophy.

There may be a component to reality that is NOT testable in a controlled settings.

And how is this distinguishable from such a component not existing?
What is the point of such claims?
What reason would anyone have for imagining such a component existed other than it is something that could be imagined?

There's a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence for suvrival of consciouness after death.

Anecdotal evidence is of little to no use in determining these matters. There is anecdotal evidence for fairies, bigfoo and the Loch Ness Monster.
And there are perfectly well understood explanations for experiences generated during NDEs/OBEs.

If you think there is a tremendous amount of evidence for survival of consciousness after death it seems strange one of the first examples of evidence you post is this chess example which could be so easily (relatively) hoaxed.

There's not any evidence, one way or the other, for the existence of invisible leprechuans.

Nor is there for the existence of consciousness after death.

Please quote some of what you believe to be the "tremendous amount of evidence" for the existence of consciousness after death.
It might help if you start with what you believe to be the strongest evidence.

 

[Malerin]

Please quote some of what you believe to be the "tremendous amount of evidence" for the existence of consciousness after death.
It might help if you start with what you believe to be the strongest evidence.

It would be more helpful if you quoted me correctly. I never said what you have in quotes.

 

[Ashles]

It would be more helpful if you quoted me correctly. I never said what you have in quotes.

So you are saying all evidence towards consciousness surviving after death is anecdotal?

Okay then.

 

[JoeEllison]

If you're already predisposed towards materialism, then you WILL roll your eyes. But if you have an open mind about life-after-death, the natural explanation will leave something to be desired, because there is a competing theory.

No, if you are predisposed towards being logical and intelligent, you'll roll your eyes. If you put stupid superstitious nonsense and willful ignorance first, as you have done, you'll be a sucker for every hoax in the world, including this one.

 

[Malerin]

So you are saying all evidence towards consciousness surviving after death is anecdotal?

Okay then.

It seems that way (I think some of the NDE research is hard to explain on a materialist level. It has certainly made believers out of doctors who were initially skeptical), though that's not necessarily good or bad. I bet you've never been to Bangaldesh. Yet you assume it's a real country. All you have to go by are accounts of other people (books, interviews, etc.) who claim to have been there. It's all second-hand.

Peronsally, I've had two supernatural experiences. They're real to me, but would be anecdotal to you. I've talked to probably a dozen people I know very well who admit to experiencing something supernatural. If you stop 10 people in the street you'll either get a couple stories of supernatural experiences, and stories of people they know who've had them. Are all of these people liars or dupes? Check out "The Scalpel and the Soul", written by a neurosurgeon about some strange things he has experienced and witnessed. Also, Ian Stevenson's work on past-life recollection of children is interesting. There are a couple of articles of his that made it into peer-reviwed journals: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease and Journal of Scientific Exploration

40% of American scientists beleive in a personal God they can pray to. Are nearly half of Amnerican scientists idiots or fools?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E3DE143CF93BA35755C0A961958260

The point is, if I told you I've been to Bangladesh, you might believe me. If I told you I'd seen a ghost once, you wouldn't believe me. Yet, your only proof that Bangladesh is real are anecdotal accounts by a large number of people who have written and talked about their experiences there (and some photographic evidence, which we all know could be doctored). Why you choose to believe one statement over another is very telling.

 

[Malerin]

No, if you are predisposed towards being logical and intelligent, you'll roll your eyes. If you put stupid superstitious nonsense and willful ignorance first, as you have done, you'll be a sucker for every hoax in the world, including this one.

Suckers like over half the doctor's in America?

"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8318894/

When you go for an appointment, I guess you better ask "Do you believe in the afterlife?" Chances are pretty good you're going to get a positive response. Suckers, fools and dupes, all of them! Right?

 

[leon_heller]

The Journal of Scientific Exploration was started by the PEAR people, as they couldn't get their papers published by reputable journals. None of the articles in it appear to have been reviewed by anyone; all the ones I have seen have been published without any revisions, which is very unusual for a scientific publication.

Leon

 

[ihaunter]

Reading the goddess chess blog that was linked in the OP actually answers a few of the OP's questions. What was the motive for such a hoax?

A weird experiment to substantiate reincarnation was devised in 1985 by Dr. Wolfgang Eisenbeiss at the Swiss Institute of Parapsychology.

Successfully pulling off such a hoax could possible gain grants or other such benefits. The psychic obviously gains credibility as having been "scientifically" tested. It is also possible that Eisenbeiss was actually a victim in this hoax as well, and that the only true fraud was Rollins (the psychic)

Also from the blog is this comment on the "spirit's" play style

"Maroczy plays in an outmoded style that nobody uses today, but he's tough," said Korchnoi. Yet White had little hope after botching the opening. The real Maroczy faced the Winawer Variation four times, choosing 4 exd5 twice and 4 Nge2 twice instead of the uncharacteristic 4 e5. Correct was 12 Ng5! Nxe5 13 f4 Rxg5 14 fxg5 N5g6 15 h4. And 14 Ng5! was far stronger than entering an inferior and tedious endgame in this ghostly encounter.

So it would seem that white did not play like Maroczy, nor even much like a grandmaster. It would seem that we don't even require a chess expert as an accomplice. And you said:

I should note that the write of the blogspot was a 5 time US champ who thought Maroczy botched the opening. He had no comment about the middle/end game.

The author is clearly commenting on the "inferior and tedious end game."

We now have a potential hoax that requires a minimum of one person and a maximum of two to pull off, both of which would have motive. Not proof that it was faked, but shows that a hoax is nowhere near is hard to understand or pull off as you claim.

 

[leon_heller]

Suckers like over half the doctor's in America?

"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8318894/

When you go for an appointment, I guess you better ask "Do you believe in the afterlife?" Chances are pretty good you're going to get a positive response. Suckers, fools and dupes, all of them! Right?

Of course they will say that they are believers, it's good for business.

Leon

 

[Civilized Worm]

yes, but which here makes the least assumptions? The supernatual one assumes that life-after-death is possible, and some people can contact the dead. It doesn't assume any causal explanation, just that the above CAN happen.

The natural one assumes dishonety on the part of all involved (except the grandmaster), an elaborate hoax than went on for years for no particular gain, a mysterious high-level chess player willing to risk his reputation, and assumes all parties would stay silent after the fact for the last 15 years.

I don't see why Eisenbeiss had to have been in on the hoax, it could just have been Rollans and the mystery chess player. No particular gain? Rollans created the impression that he could contact the dead which I would think would be very helpful to someone making their career as a medium. Why wouldn't they stay silent? What more could be gained by exposing the hoax?

Edit: I see ihaunter has beat me to it.

 

[JoeEllison]

Suckers like over half the doctor's in America?

"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8318894/

When you go for an appointment, I guess you better ask "Do you believe in the afterlife?" Chances are pretty good you're going to get a positive response. Suckers, fools and dupes, all of them! Right?

You said it...

You have committed a serious logical fallacy: appeal to authority. You are also changing the subject from the very specific fraud that YOU fell for, to a more general subject that many people believe in. If it makes you feel better about your own gullibility about this chess scam to claim that other people are just as gullible as you, that's fine... it makes you gullible AND illogical, but you have a right to it.

 

[Mashuna]

Peronsally, I've had two supernatural experiences. They're real to me, but would be anecdotal to you.

Well, if you're going to go around believing that sensory input is somehow a valid indicator of anything, what do you expect?

The point is, if I told you I've been to Bangladesh, you might believe me. If I told you I'd seen a ghost once, you wouldn't believe me. Yet, your only proof that Bangladesh is real are anecdotal accounts by a large number of people who have written and talked about their experiences there (and some photographic evidence, which we all know could be doctored). Why you choose to believe one statement over another is very telling.

Now, I'm not sure what you find telling about these statements. Would you assign equal probabilities as to the accuracy of the two scenarios you've described above?

 

[Ashles]

The point is, if I told you I've been to Bangladesh, you might believe me. If I told you I'd seen a ghost once, you wouldn't believe me. Yet, your only proof that Bangladesh is real are anecdotal accounts by a large number of people who have written and talked about their experiences there (and some photographic evidence, which we all know could be doctored). Why you choose to believe one statement over another is very telling.

How about this for a fairly crucial difference - I could go to Bangladesh.

I could choose to disbelieve you, but you would be able to describe very real actions I could take to experience the same thing as you.

It is a testable claim.

(Also there is the matter that a country existing does not run counter to known physical laws, or commonly accepted experience. I live in a country - why would it seem unlikely that another country existed?)

 

[Ashles]

When you go for an appointment, I guess you better ask "Do you believe in the afterlife?" Chances are pretty good you're going to get a positive response. Suckers, fools and dupes, all of them! Right?

Who said it was simply to do with gullibility or stupidity (although I have read of correlation between religious belief and gullibility rating).

I find it far more likely that there is common psychology that predisposes people to accept the concept of a God as a way of coping with mortality/loss issues.

 

[Rocko]

Now, doesn't empirical evidence tell us that people don't usually go to this much trouble unless there's something to gain from all of it?

Nope. Plenty of hoaxes are done simply for the love of playing a trick. Crop circles would be an obvious example.

 

[PingOfPong]

Did any of you know about it?

I don't think I'm part of the intended audience.

Korochnoi is the patsy in all this! Are you now assuming Korochnoi is one the of conspiriators?

A hoax would definitely require that Rollans is a conspirator. Korochnoi and Eisenbeiss may or may not be part of it. I'll try to post after my morning coffee from now on.

What kind of "street cred" would beating a ghost give him in the world of high-level tournament chess?

No, I said "street cred" in your circles. Your kind of people who believe in mediums, spirits, etc.

That goes both ways- why has no one come forward with information about the hoax after the last 15 years? If the mysterious chess player or Eisenbeiss has nothing to worry about reputation-wise, why have they stayed silent lo these many years? Why did the medium go to his death without revealing it was a hoax?

Because he/she didn't feel the need to come forward. Hey, maybe it wasn't even as important to him/her as it is to you.

I think she took quite a bit of heat for it, actually. It fed into the whole "The Clinton's will say/do anything to win." It was in the news-cycle for at least a week (Hillary's denials, then CBS finally digging up an archive tape of the landing ceremoney sans sniper fire).

Exactly, the buzz died down in a week. She's still the senator of New York and a serious contender in all national U.S. politics.

So you really did mean Korochnoi in the beginning of your post. So now the theory is Eiesenbeiss, Korochnoi, and the medium all conspired to play a "ghost" game over 8 years, AND do extensive research, just so Korochnoi could intimidate his superstitious living opponents or impress chicks at a bar? Really now.

I've seen people "spooked" by mention of the supernatural. It really has a profound effect on some. The bar theory was just supposed to be silly.

Sure, You could throw out plenty of possibilities. Are any of them reasonable to believe?

Yes absolutely. In any case, the rationale doesn't have to be reasonable to you or me.

Let's take Korochnoi out of the picture. The medium certainly has an incentive to fool Korochnoi. It would lend credence to his medium prowess.

 

[Ashles]

Also, are we expected to draw from this that the dead can communicate an entire chess game, yet whenever contacted seem to manage nothing more than "The letter D or B, and an uncle?"

They can't help us solve murders or other crimes, restore lost knowledge, solve current problems, locate lost items or loations, find lost children...
But they can play chess for 8 years.

 

[Pup]

Also, are we expected to draw from this that the dead can communicate an entire chess game, yet whenever contacted seem to manage nothing more than "The letter D or B, and an uncle?"

But that's what they're so good at. "I'm seeing a P. And a Q. And a 4. Does that mean anything to you as a chess player?"

I find it far more likely that there is common psychology that predisposes people to accept the concept of a God as a way of coping with mortality/loss issues.

And for everyone involved who wasn't in on the deception, the chess game would tap into that same common psychology, if one could use the experience to "prove" to oneself that consciousness continued after death. There's motivation right there.

 

[quarky]

I must object to the idea that it would be a lot of trouble to go to all this effort. It wouldn't be difficult, nor require much effort. The game took years; there's plenty of time; not much effort, really. (much as i like the notion of good, dead chess players...beats harp players)

 

[JoeEllison]

I must object to the idea that it would be a lot of trouble to go to all this effort. It wouldn't be difficult, nor require much effort. The game took years; there's plenty of time; not much effort, really. (much as i like the notion of good, dead chess players...beats harp players)

Right on... the amount of effort to produce one good chess move every two months or so? Teeny-tiny. I could produce that kind of fraud right now, out of boredom, and would take less than a few hours. If you spread that few hours over EIGHT YEARS it is no big deal at all.