Dead Man's Chess

[Malerin]

But he didn't win.

He played a Grandmaster to 46 moves, only trailing a pawn the entire time, AND got the grandmaster to admit at one point that he may not win. It would take a high-level master/grandmaster to accomplish that. There is no evidence at all that an average player "with plenty of time" could play at that level.

What were your "supernatural" experiences?

What would be the point? I would be personally attacked for posting them and they would be ridiculed with the same mean-spiritedness that every other non-materialist subject that's ever posted here is subject to. This is one of the most close-minded abusive communities I've come across in a long time, and my posts here are just about done. Doesn't matter to me, I'll just move on, but I think it says a whole lot about the skeptics here.

If your gut reaction is to immediately attack everything outside your belief system, you've got a serious emotional investment going on.

 

[Ashles]

This is one of the most close-minded abusive communities I've come across in a long time

You should try some of the homeopathy forums.

 

[JoeEllison]

He played a Grandmaster to 46 moves, only trailing a pawn the entire time, AND got the grandmaster to admit at one point that he may not win. It would take a high-level master/grandmaster to accomplish that. There is no evidence at all that an average player "with plenty of time" could play at that level.

It is possible through many means to simulate high-level play under the circumstances of this situation. There is zero evidence of ghosts. So, obviously, any rational and intelligent person would correctly surmise that this was a clever ruse. If you give someone 8 years to make 48 moves, and access to every game that the dead player participated it, it seems pretty likely that a clever person could fake it relatively easily. Only a fool or a sucker would believe that the ghost explanation was more likely.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....All's I need is some time!"
...

Point me towards a grand master who would be willing to play me through the mail over a period of 8 years ...

You think maybe I could convince them I'm channeling Emanuel Lasker ?

 

[Civilized Worm]

What would be the point? I would be personally attacked for posting them and they would be ridiculed with the same mean-spiritedness that every other non-materialist subject that's ever posted here is subject to. This is one of the most close-minded abusive communities I've come across in a long time, and my posts here are just about done. Doesn't matter to me, I'll just move on, but I think it says a whole lot about the skeptics here.

If your gut reaction is to immediately attack everything outside your belief system, you've got a serious emotional investment going on.

I'm just curious. Man you've got thin skin!

 

[theMark]

What would be the point? I would be personally attacked for posting them and they would be ridiculed with the same mean-spiritedness that every other non-materialist subject that's ever posted here is subject to. This is one of the most close-minded abusive communities I've come across in a long time, and my posts here are just about done. Doesn't matter to me, I'll just move on, but I think it says a whole lot about the skeptics here.
If your gut reaction is to immediately attack everything outside your belief system, you've got a serious emotional investment going on.

I've followed those threads for a while, and I'd not call this community close-minded or abusive. In fact, people here are about the most open-minded and civil ones I've encountered in more than a decade of surfing the internet. They are willing to explain why they arrived at certain conclusions. And they are willing to change their view of the world, in light of new evidence. And herein lies the problem: An "unexplained" occurrence is just that, unexplained. Our senses, even our thought processes, are very, very fallible. We all can be duped, tricked, lied to - without us noticing. Especially those who are very convinced of certain things, they are most easily tricked and exploited.

This is why people around here value evidence - independent, repeatable evidence. Otherwise, we'd be bound to fall for each easy "wannabe" explanation. Most "supernatural" explanations are of that kind: they don't explain anything at all, they just sound "right" without having any substance (be that dowsing, homeopathy, astrology, the afterlife, or dozens of other cheap tricks. And I do not call them "cheap tricks" lightly - those fads have nothing to show that they fare better than making things up or tossing coins). Hundreds and hundreds of years have passed, yet we've not found anything like a ghost. Or a god. Or a demon. Or faeries. We're not communicating by telepathy, we're using the internet and machines, the products of technology and science. Why? Because the other things just don't work. (And I'd really like to just close my eyes and send my mind to a tropical beach right now. It just isn't going to happen. Not without drugs, at least )

Malerin, please consider this: Most of the people writing here have read, heard or experienced the same situations again and again: something supernatural is claimed, but the claim, after closer inspection, falls apart. Utterly. Nothing "unexplainable" or "supernatural" happened. Most of the time, it turns out to be a con or a hoax. Sometimes, it remains "unexplained" due to lack of information.

Oh, and I'd like to add that I'd be genuinely interested the experiences you mentioned above. Remember: We're not disputing that you have experienced whatever you describe. Just be prepared to have your explanations for them challenged.

-theMark

 

[AntiTelharsic]

What would be the point?

What was the point in coming to a skeptics' forum with stories about ghosts and astrology and non-materialism? To me it looks like you came here with the aim of getting people to argue against your woo just so you'd be able to call them close-minded. I think you came here with a chip on your shoulder about skeptics and skepticism, looking for a fight.

If your gut reaction is to immediately attack everything outside your belief system, you've got a serious emotional investment going on.

Skeptics attack any and every notion so that they can discover which ones are worth accepting. The idea is to think critically about ideas and let only the strong ideas survive. If you don't want your beliefs criticized, don't bring them to a skeptics' forum.

We're not close-minded. Anyone here would happily evaluate any evidence brought to the table. But that's not what you're doing. You're not bringing reasonable arguments to the table, let alone any evidence. We're not obliged to accept your beliefs just because you believe them really, really hard.

I don't think you're interested in finding the truth of any of these matters. You don't want your ideas tested -- you have preconceived notions that highly implausible things are true and will continue to defend those notions in the face of far more plausible counterarguments. That's not critical thinking; it's not how things work here. Why would you even want to be here at all?

 

[JoeEllison]

We're not close-minded. Anyone here would happily evaluate any evidence brought to the table. But that's not what you're doing. You're not bringing reasonable arguments to the table, let alone any evidence. We're not obliged to accept your beliefs just because you believe them really, really hard.

I don't think you're interested in finding the truth of any of these matters. You don't want your ideas tested -- you have preconceived notions that highly implausible things are true and will continue to defend those notions in the face of far more plausible counterarguments. That's not critical thinking; it's not how things work here. Why would you even want to be here at all?

That's the funny thing: we're open minded to evidence and logic, while Malerin is 100% closed to the possibility that he's wrong about this. We didn't just say "psychics are dumb" and leave it at that. We examined what little evidence there is, spent some time thinking about the situation, and then we rejected it based on the lack of merit of the claims. Malerin refuses to accept the fundamental weakness of the claims, the obvious ways it could be faked, and clings to his belief beyond all logic or reason... and then scolds US for not having open minds. Nutty!

 

[blutoski]

There's a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence for suvrival of consciouness after death. There's not any evidence, one way or the other, for the existence of invisible leprechuans.

Of course there is!

Who do you think makes thunder?

Link: [Lore of the leprechaun]

 

[Foolmewunz]

So now the claim is, given enough time to study the board, you, an unranked player, could play one of the top Grandmasters in the world to a draw? And people here think the supernatural explanation is loopy!??!? There are probabaly over 100,000,000 chess players in the world. There are about 900 Grandmasters.

You guys have gone so far off the deep end trying to "rationalize" this, you've made the supernatural position STRONGER!

Malerin, I mentioned this in another thread, but it bears repeating....

GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND

I was at an exhibition in Hong Kong last year where Ian Rogers (Grandmaster) lost two games the night I was there (he played more the next day and I don't recall the results). One was to a "Woman Grandmaster", a lowly and condescending ranking, and the other to a FIDE Master who's about as far as he's going in the rankings.

Google Exhibition Chess & Grandmaster and check the number of games under less than optimal conditions that Grandmasters lose to club players.

Could Rogers have beaten those players under tournament conditions. Of course. The point we're making is that with negative or positive time constraints a great player will make mistakes and a lesser player will find the optimal moves, respectively. (Especially if, as under this ectoplasmic game, the lesser - or dead - player has no one watching him and can consult with anyone he wants or use any computer available.)

You also skirted the question.... Do you play chess? Or are you citing others in articles you've read? I took the game seriously when I was younger and know that mail games are only for entertainment and not taken seriously. It's generally a field of honour thing. You play someone by mail (played, actually as most such are no longer done with the advent of email and on line boards) just for the fun of it. If one party or the other wants to win more than anything else, the opportunities for cheating are too rife.

Confirmation bias. Yours and Korchnoi's.

Viktor wanted to believe he was playing a ghost, so saw the openings as those of an old style player. Plus, they were probably from old Maroczy games which are in the public record - he was a defensive specialist even when he had the white, so setting up a Maroczy style defense (there's even a position named after him in response to a Sicilian, I believe) would not be that hard.

The chances for subterfuge in this scenario are too huge for any critical thinker to hand-wave away. You prefer to believe the "but what if" possibilities in the face of all reason, though.

 

[Brian-M]

Malerin,

To reduce things to basics, the proposed methods for the medium cheating are:

1) Eliciting the aid of other chess players.
2) Extensive research of previous games & chess literature.
3) Computer assistance.
4) Combination of the above.

So far, you have not provided us with any compelling argument to believe that any of these methods are unworkable. (At most, the valid portions of your arguments show these methods would be difficult, but not impossible.)

Also, many people have gone to extraordinary lengths to perpetuate hoaxes with no apparent motive for doing so.

As the medium in this case had ample time and several possible methods of faking it, do you really expect us to accept this as proof of an afterlife?


I think Harry Houdini had a good idea for a test of a medium's abilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Houdini#Code_words
If the test had been blind (ie, his wife didn't know the code words in advance, and had to verify them with a trusted third party not present during the readings) it would have been perfect.

*****

My understanding is that Judaism believes in God, but not an afterlife. For more details, Conversations with Rabbi Small is pretty good -- and written by a genuine Conservative rabbi. (Kemmelmann? Something like that, anyway).

Cool. So instead of expected to be rewarded/punished in the afterlife, they expect to be rewarded/punished in this lifetime? And all the stuff about hell, etc, is only in the new testament? (I'm probably misunderstanding everything. Ignorance is my constant companion.)

Thanks for not picking up on my math error. I shouldn't post in a hurry.

Who do you think makes thunder?

Link: [Lore of the leprechaun]

Bugger. Someone beat me to it, but here's my Leprechaun link anyway...

www.deadsquirrel.net/heresy/lol.html

 

[Malerin]

I tried Google before I posted: grandmaster loses "club player"- nothing

"club player" defeats grandmaster- Nothing except this:

Paul Broekhuijse defeats IM Alex Wohl

"Canberra April 10, 1998. Former Australian Junior Champion Central Coast player Paul Broekhuijse rated 1855 defeated the third highest rated player in Australia International Master Alex Wohl rated 2440 (FIDE). Paul's win was the biggest upset of the open section of the 1998 Doeberl Cup."

But that's not a grandmaster, and 1855 is not an average player.

Also Googled what you suggested: Exhibition Chess & Grandmaster

Got this story: "On Saturday, Febrauary 18, Grandmaster Gennady Sagalchik simultaneously played 33 local chess players in the UMBC Ballroom Lounge. The results: 25 wins, 3 losses, and 5 draws. The event was organized by the UMB Chess Club, with the support of the UMBC Student Government Association."

Are you counting THAT as a closs to a club player?

Apparently, you're better at Googling than I am. I can't find a Grandmaster losing to an average player in any format except when they play 30 or 40 people at the same time. If you know of any 1 on 1 examples, by all means, post them.

Yes, I've played tournament chess. Had a rating of 1660 before I gave it up.

I'm not claiming it's impossible for a below 1800 rated player to defeat a Grandmaster. Just that it is very very unlikely. I've played people rated 1200 and couldn't imagine how I could possibly lose to them. Mayeb if I was diagnosed with terminal cancer that same day or something. And that's only a 400 point difference.

I took the game seriously when I was younger and know that mail games are only for entertainment and not taken seriously.

We don't know how seriously Korochoi took the game. If he truly believed he was playing a dead grandmaster he may have taken it very seriously out of respect for the dead player. He may have taken EVERY game he played seriously. We DO know he stuck with it for 8 years, which is an indicator of a certain level of seriousness.

And then there is of course this: Who wants to be known as the Grandmaster who lost to a ghost?

 

[Mark Felt]

Apparently, you're better at Googling than I am. I can't find a Grandmaster losing to an average player in any format except when they play 30 or 40 people at the same time. If you know of any 1 on 1 examples, by all means, post them.

Moving the goalposts. You claimed that it was all but impossible.

When Grandmasters lose, they are invariably defeated by other grandmasters or prodigies who later become Grandmasters themselves (David Howell, Fabiano Caruana).

If you think it's possible for a grandmaster to lose or draw to an average player, then find the match. It's almost unheard of for a Grandmaster to lose even to a master.

We don't know how seriously Korochoi took the game. If he truly believed he was playing a dead grandmaster he may have taken it very seriously out of respect for the dead player. He may have taken EVERY game he played seriously. We DO know he stuck with it for 8 years, which is an indicator of a certain level of seriousness.

It doesn't really matter how seriously he played the game, there was a move once every two months, and let's face it, a guy of Korchnois standard doesn't need two months to decide on a move. I have lying around my house enough chessboards to set up seven or eight different possible ways the game would go at any one time, and while I don't claim to be an excellent chess player by any means, give me two months worth of spare time to research the opening gambits of the dead guy, and then only have to provide a move once every two months, and I could, possibly, play Korchnoi to a draw. It would be damn difficult, but it could be done.

 

[Malerin]

The natural explanation assumes either To reduce things to basics, the proposed methods for the medium cheating are:

1) Eliciting the aid of other chess players.
2) Extensive research of previous games & chess literature.
3) Computer assistance.
4) Combination of the above.

The computer angle seems the least likely. It wasn't until 1988 that a GM even lost to a computer. The computers that were playing high-level tournament chess in the late 80's-early 90's were sponsored by companies like Cray and IBM. I don't remember there being anything you could buy in the store that was rated over 1,800 at the time.

But yes, the natural explanation seems to require the aid of not just a chess player, but a chess player capable of making a GM doubt the outcome of the game. If Korochoi and Helmut Metz are to be belived, the mysterious chess adviser would also have had to make his play appear old-fashioned. Some have suggested that Korochoi didn't take the game seriously, but we have no evidence of that. All we know is he was ranked 3rd in the world at the time, and stuck with the game for 8 years. In the absence of any other evidence, it's reasonable to assume the mysterious chess player(s) was very highly rated. So somehow, either Eisenbeiss, the medium (or both) had access to a highly rated player(s) for 8 years, who would have kept quiet 15 years after the game. It's certainly possible, but how likely is it? But that's not the most implausible part.

The natural explanation assumes at least Eisenbeiss or the medium (or both) set out to perpetrate a hoax. From what we know of elaborate hoaxes, they are done for one of three reasons: Profit, publicity, or the thrill of pulling it off. What else is there? I was bored so I decided to play a correspondance game with a GM for 8 years, fly to Hungary, do 70 hours of research and interview some dead guy's family? As there was no money at stake and the game garnered virtually zero publicity, the only plausible motivation is to see if it could be done.

So I think the naturalistic explanation is weak on motivation. This kind of hoax would take quite a lot of work to pull off (finding a high-ranking player to advise you, staying with the game for 8 years, and quite a bit of research). If the only reasonable explanation is "Hey, look how I fooled everyone", why did Rollans go to his grave with the secret? Don't people usually brag when they pull off a big hoax just for the hell of it? If Eisenbeiss was the mastermind, why has HE kept quiet all these years? HE certainly gained nothing from the game. And if its all a fake, why drag the game out for 8 years? The hoax would be just as valid if the game had finished in 1 year, and that would have left plenty of time to perpetuate OTHER hoaxes on unsuspecting GM's. But no attempt was ever made again.

So far, you have not provided us with any compelling argument to believe that any of these methods are unworkable. (At most, the valid portions of your arguments show these methods would be difficult, but not impossible.)

I never said the natural explanation was impossible. I pointed out that it was weak in certain areas, namely motivation and lack of explanation for the length of the game.

Also, many people have gone to extraordinary lengths to perpetuate hoaxes with no apparent motive for doing so.

There's always a motive. Again, did Rollans or Eisenbeiss decide to do all this just out of boredom?

As the medium in this case had ample time and several possible methods of faking it, do you really expect us to accept this as proof of an afterlife?

I never said it was "proof" of an afterlife. I said it was "interesting", and I still think so. I think the fact that someone went to a lot of trouble over many years for no material benefit (and died with the secret) raises a lot of questions.

I think Harry Houdini had a good idea for a test of a medium's abilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Houdini#Code_words
If the test had been blind (ie, his wife didn't know the code words in advance, and had to verify them with a trusted third party not present during the readings) it would have been perfect.

Is there a single case of Houdini exposing a medium who worked for FREE?

 

[Malerin]

Moving the goalposts. You claimed that it was all but impossible.

Nothing's impossible, but if the only cases you have for a Grandmaster losing to a Master (or lower ranked player) is by playing dozens of people simultaenously with time constraints (or losing to a prodigy who later became a GM), it doesn't exactly help your theory. Korchnoi was NOT playing 30 odd people at the same time. He was playing 1 person and had, on average, 10 weeks per move. Judging by Korchnoi's remarks and the closeness of the game itself, it is only reasonable to assume that if it was a hoax, they would have needed the help of a highly rated player.

I also presented as evidence the attempt by hundreds of chess players working together to beat one GM (which was an exhibition game, so hey, the GM didn't care, right?) By the 14th move, the GM (who was not even in the top 100, let alone 3rd ranked in the world) was already a knight ahead.

It doesn't really matter how seriously he played the game, there was a move once every two months, and let's face it, a guy of Korchnois standard doesn't need two months to decide on a move. I have lying around my house enough chessboards to set up seven or eight different possible ways the game would go at any one time, and while I don't claim to be an excellent chess player by any means, give me two months worth of spare time to research the opening gambits of the dead guy, and then only have to provide a move once every two months, and I could, possibly, play Korchnoi to a draw. It would be damn difficult, but it could be done.

It's easy to suppose something. Do you know of a single instance where a GM lost or drew to a casual player in a 1-1 game? Do you honestly believe that just by thinking really hard for a long time, you can play at the same level as a GM?

 

[Mark Felt]

Nothing's impossible, but if the only cases you have for a Grandmaster losing to a Master (or lower ranked player) is by playing dozens of people simultaenously with time constraints (or losing to a prodigy who later became a GM), it doesn't exactly help your theory. Korchnoi was NOT playing 30 odd people at the same time. He was playing 1 person and had, on average, 10 weeks per move. Judging by Korchnoi's remarks and the closeness of the game itself, it is only reasonable to assume that if it was a hoax, they would have needed the help of a highly rated player.

Or, alternatively, half-decent understanding of chess, access to games played previously by the deceased and the opponent together and seperately and time to extrapolate various moves, all of which it is completely and utterly possible that they had.

I also presented as evidence the attempt by hundreds of chess players working together to beat one GM (which was an exhibition game, so hey, the GM didn't care, right?) By the 14th move, the GM (who was not even in the top 100, let alone 3rd ranked in the world) was already a knight ahead.

So, lots of terrible cooks spoil the broth and lose to a GM? Man, I couldn't have seen that coming.

It's easy to suppose something. Do you know of a single instance where a GM lost or drew to a casual player in a 1-1 game?

Not one where the non-GM didn't have time to study(not just the board) in between moves, so this is relevant why?

Do you honestly believe that just by thinking really hard for a long time, you can play at the same level as a GM?

I believe that IF I had two months prep time for each move, access to records of games played by the opponent, access to records of games played by the guy I'm supposed to be emulating, multiple chess boards to plan ahead on, and a few books on chess at grandmaster level, yes, I could play an extremely close game.

 

[Malerin]

I believe that IF I had two months prep time for each move, access to records of games played by the opponent, access to records of games played by the guy I'm supposed to be emulating, multiple chess boards to plan ahead on, and a few books on chess at grandmaster level, yes, I could play an extremely close game.

If I had months to paint a picture, access to Rembrandat's work, multiple canvasses to work on, and a few books on painting, my paintings would still look like **** because I can't draw worth a damn, and no amount of time or practice will ever erase my complete lack of talent.

You would get your ass handed to you. Have you found a case yet where a GM lost any kind of 1-1 game against a casual player?

Oh, and assuming you're right, what exactly did Rollans expect to gain for his years of painstaking chess research? Besides an untimely death at the end of the game, that is.

 

[Malerin]

So, lots of terrible cooks spoil the broth and lose to a GM? Man, I couldn't have seen that coming.

Apparently not if you believe you can simply read some books, study your opponent, spend a long time thinking ahead and expect to play "an extremely close game" against the 3rd best player in the world.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Malerin, you are being intentionally obtuse, now. And Mark Felt is absolutely right. You are moving the goalposts.

The point I was making about losing in group demonstrations was not that they wouldn't win most matches, but that they could lose to someone BECAUSE THE TIME CONSTRAINTS FORCED THEM TO MAKE RUSHED ILL-ADVISED MOVES. Are you following the conversation at all?

That was the flip side of the coin to the discussion of a average to fair to good player being able, allowed sufficient time and any form of assistance whatsoever, to come up with optimal moves over an eight year game.

You even found results that show that your GM lost 3 games to club players. I cited the games I saw one lose at an exhibition here. WE WERE DISCUSSING EXHIBITIONS. You are the one who contended that a GM could never lose to an average player (FIDE Master is sort of average, by the way). I (we) contend that exhibitions, chess by mail, chess hopping on one foot, etc... are all casual/fun games and offer differences that can (not "must"... but can) give either party an advantage.

So now you have moved the goalposts and are holding that you only mean in "legitimate" tournament type competition? You realize of course that you're nailing your own coffin shut with that move? In short.... You are citing a goofy chess-by-mail game with a ghost. Just how are we supposed to judge that by Elo/FIDEstandards?

BTW, when someone says something like "I take/took the game seriously" in a general discussion, it does not mean a specific game/match. I was referring to the fact that I played chess often and seriously and was working towards getting a rating when life intervened (I had a kid to raise).

And I say you don't play the game because you take this ratings stuff far too seriously. Chess players don't make a lot on product endorsements or tournament wins. They make a few bucks lecturing and giving exhibitions and writing/solving chess problems for publications. It's not exactly the old NFL adage (on any given Sunday), but there are numerous instances of people losing (in "friendlies" or "gimmick games") to people so far below them that it would amount to an average player (me) against the ghost of Maroczy... And yes, I could win.

In fact, get the ghost of any known player, channel him/her through Sylvia or Edwards, and I bet you right now a thousand Euros that over a maximum of 48 moves and eight years of time (and no one to check on what I'm doing)and I will beat him. I mean this should be easy. Ghosts come back and play chess all the time in your world. I'm game. As soon as you get the ghost on the line PM me.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Apparently not if you believe you can simply read some books, study your opponent, spend a long time thinking ahead and expect to play "an extremely close game" against the 3rd best player in the world.

As opposed to believing a dead GM is playing chess through a medium ?

I think you missed a turn somewhere...