An Idea That Could Change Everything (in chess)

And for all you haters who still doubt that post exists. Look how quickly I can type large pieces and post them. 4 mins between those huge chunks of text. Now imagine how long the one I worked forever on took. There's like 10 topics, I missed some of them and that isn't even the original! It's a SUPER-summary... Just enough hopefully to help you connect the dots with how I am thinking..

Hiya. Obviously I was drawn in by the title. I wouldn't say it would change everything, thought. But I've gotta give you props for sticking to your guns despite the admitedely hilarious but quite uncalled for mockery. Maybe it's because the word "potential" has been completely overused, or rather, misused in this thread, but I'm not sure this idea of yours would work as the proper rating system for chess. At best, it would be an interesting application that I would definitely download. But impractical for seriously rating one's ches skill. I mean, I'd wanna know my potential, just for kicks, but it's more important for me to know how good I really am. That's kind of what it boils down to for me. I'm sorry that you haven't gotten more positive feedback, and best of luck in developing the ideas you've mentioned above. If anything, it's something to think about = )

Woah....MOON KNIGHT, relax.......I don't see anyone swearing at you.  You posted something that got ripped at...of course, that is what happens on forums.  But, I don't see how your theory can be of any use, as a game has to be taken as a whole.  There are no "best moves" that can be rated, as they are taken out of context of a game.  Why are you interested in a rating in the first place?  All it is, is a measure of your results against other people.  The rating system we have gives a very fair appraisal of your strength relative to other people.  Comparing individual moves against what a computer evaluates, does not really give any indication of how "good" a person is or could be at chess.  Our rating system is a very good indication of how people play relative to other people.  In over the board play, a 200 point difference in rating is based upon the statistic that the higher rated opponent beats the lower rated opponent 75% of the time.  If those are not the results, then the ratings change to reflect the results.  We can cut a chess game into parts and say that individual moves were great, but the overall play was bad...or that a player has greater endgame ability than opening knowledge...but, in the end, chess is a game that ends with a win, loss or draw.  

Sorry if I gave you too much of a hard time.  But, I feel that the rating system is perfect for what it does:  compares the strength of players to other players.

"Potential" rating system used for judging moves you made that are good by a computers stand point."

I don't understand this point, at all. It's the word "potential" that confuses me. If you take 1 game you've played, have the computer show you what % of moves it evaluates as accurate, inaccurate, blunder, etc, like the Chess.com computer does, how can that evaluation, for that game, help you to play better? If you average 3 inaccuracies, and one blunder a game, in a hundred games, what potential rating would you have? You would have to be much more specific and rigorous in your theorizing, in order to explain what you could possibly mean.

Like what are you distinguishing by saying there are two types of players: one creative, the other calculative? Give an example, because your distinction is unclear. Especially when you continue to use "creative" a few more times in your "theory" but I don't know what "creative" means the way you're using it.

Of course, your "elitist theory" reads more like an expression of enthusiasm, with no content. It's like you're saying, I have a vague thought I'll call a 'theory', which excites me so much that I'll use equally vague words to describe it, like "good", "better", "a creative system", "raise the intellectual bar higher", etc. But what the hell are you going on about? That your vague musings having the "potential" to be theory, or a "system"?

For me, you're going to have to be much clearer about your 'insight'.

Ok seeing that I'm leaving people confused I'll try and elaborate as much as I can.. I still think this can work; all of you are forgiven and I admit I did not react the best.

Please note, this is an extreme summary. And to get rid of confusion.. I'll rename this theory because to be honest the word doesn't even work anymore..

Best word to describe this method..

Calculative system?

Seeing that this system would be used to calculate best moves you need to determine what best is. Which you would need to use from a computers stand point. Basically it's how much you can play like a computer.

Seeing that a section of chess is quite literally man vs. machine this application could be useful. I'm not saying that it should be implemented on an official scale. In fact even if it did work everyone simply wouldn't care. It would still change things maybe even some core ideas of chess by adding in another element.

 How a computer plays.

While most of us possibly don't play computers constantly and probably prefer people you cannot ignore this element. Knowing your enemy helps you defeat them. This could help players who focus on games vs the computer but also could influence people vs. people games. You can't ignore the fact that computers beat people; and not just any people...the known best of us.. In fact, big blue could probably beat most of us. But if you LEARN to think like your greatest enemy.

The enemy that could beat you down everytime you played until you reach his level I beleive..

As far as I can tell, The idea of chess seems to be: "The more you understand and know; the more formidable you are."

The serious player study openings, formations; the whole nine yards.. But what if we didn't think of how to play like a computer? Which is your most formidable opponent maybe in the whole world. This calculative system would judge your ability on how to play like a computer. Computers have set capabilities. I beleive this CAN be done. In order to have the computer not destroy us, they base it off a certain level right? like 2500 for example. The possibilities of chess are not infinite. There are only so many ways each piece can legally go on the board. I beleive they could program something that could defeat humans everytime. If not now, then in the future.

That's a devestating skill to have. The power to beat everyone.

Now seeing that this is beyond human capacities. We can move to think more like a computer without losing our creativity which is our strongest weapon against computers.

If you could play with the creative attributes of a human.

And the calculative attributes of a computer.

We could be the best. You just need to find the perfect balance. If your too much like a computer humans apparently can beat you. The other end of the spectrum is harder to talk about...

Too much creativity can't be a bad thing, right? So it's not a weakness...

Learn to play like the strongest enemy, humans will ever encounter. And learn to play your best as a human. I beleive this idea is true and is the balance the gm's eventually realize. And if they don't (which I think they do) then that's not the limit to how good we can be at chess.

If this can be done, which If my inferences are right it can be. It depends on how many people would be open to this. Playing like a computer on purpose? Crazy. The human mind may not be able to handle trying to do that thanks to the complicated Off-Board Element.

But if it can...here's the main question again folks..

Would you be willing to do it?

This is from my knowledge totally new, and could most definetly revolutionize chess if it worked..

I need you guys to help me speculate if this could be done. If it can be I'll try to get help to develop this "calculative" system. I may not be the best choice but if you're motivated you might help me. And we could find someone who could make this.. we could learn it and use it for ourselves if the rest of the chess world doesn't adopt it.

If you had a choice from using known weapons, but you had to work a little to get some new experimental weapons that could work and could not.. Would you stick with what you know or strive for more? Trying to prove me wrong is still striving for those weapons. Until we reach a *concrete* solid conlusion. I'm going to fight for this lost cause. Even if I have to stand alone. I want an answer and it needs to be a good one. If there's a decent shred of hope I'll keep striving.

Show this post to your friends if you think its worth it. We have pretty limited input when it comes down to it. If I'm proven wrong.. Oh well. I tried. But I will keep trying until that day comes.

{Insert something about Christopher Columbus and me being like him here. It's not necessary to say so I won't waste too much time on it.}

>Random notes I'm too lazy to edit in. Sorry I'm at school and should be working...

Experimental can fail.

I beleive this can fail.

But I beleive it could happen too, and make us all better. Give me a valid conclusion why my logic is flawed and I might beleive what you beleive. I'm not going to try and float a sinking ship like some scientists do when their theory is flawed because they want fame...

I just want an answer to make this or break this.

MOON KNIGHT OUT! :D

 I think I stated this multiple times. I apologize if I didn't. I didn't say I could prove all this... I think it can be done. But don't know. These are my reasons how and why it would be beneficial. I'm sorry if my words confuse you but I only use those type of words in the first place in all honesty to make me sound more legit, keep your interest and help me compete with the adults. It's hard to get all this out of my head in a way you guys can understand. Not that your dumb; I'm bad at translating.

I'm with you ghost girl. This is not going to or meant to replace the regular system we have now. It should go alongside it like the blitz ratings.. I have no clue what it means and in "Chess Life" the magazine and everywhere else I've been in chess I've never seen this term... It might be an official term but I'm not an expert on these things... Yes that vision was exactly what you said.. I am most definetly overusing and misusing some of the words in pieces because of literal meanings..

Theories are things your speculating but should be able to provide evidence like in science right? Well my speculations apparently don't have a lot of evidence behind them. The title states pretty simple and enticingly what I meant. An idea not a fact. It could change how we think about chess.. And chess is a thinking game in it's entierety(?) but I didn't lie in my title.

I never said it would be easy. But I do think it can be done. The biggest issue is defining the best move...that's why I brought the computers in because they have to have their own definition of best move..

I'll try and say the low-down as best as I can: This system isn't meant to replace anything. But add on to it. More like an optional thing... If you cared you'd use it. A system that would rate how much you could play like a computer.

Another major part is the creativity part. And this is where the definition of best comes in. When playing a computer it doesn't guess your psychological state. A major Off-Board element. Creativity is basically everything you do that isn't the best move, but was based off of your own guesses on what you should do. That's the random elements that helps defeat computers in chess. I'll wait for more people to respond.. Until I explain more..

I am at school after all. xD In computer math.

When I have an oppurtunity like this weekend to truly sit down and present my ideas as clear as I can I will. But for now if you care about this topic. Then you'll have to tolerate what I provide until then... I know some of my ideas double cross or I use the wrong word.. But I just want to get the word out.. I have no one supporting me yet and until I can get at least one person to understand my ideas then I fight alone and this is all you can expect..

A crack-pot who can't get his point across. The worst kind; especially to those who want to know if this is possible. And are testing me to get my thoughts out.

It's hard trying to answer all your questions or challenges because I fight alone but just repeat them or ask for an answer directly, and I'll try my best to get an answer out.

"I beleive this can fail."(sic)

Yes. I too believe this(?) can fail. Just like Christopher Columbus failed in having any moral sense whatsoever, this grand and original(?!) quest to play like a computer, makes no sense whatsoever. But I will show my friends your unique interpretation of a question mark, so they too can see what a self-absorbed sermon about pretty much nothing, looks like

Excuse my "I'm 15" insensitivity

Trysts, you're old enough to know that society will try to bludgeon any intellectual notions out of him soon enough. Let him enjoy what moments he has left.

Oh wait ... we are society.

Christ you write fast, Moon_Knight! In the end, I don't see anything original about your 'new idea'. And I wouldn't ridicule a new idea unless it wasn't new at all, but was being sold as new. You actually should go back to calling it a potential theory, because you keep writing about it's potential, even though it never manifests. You sound more like a salesman without a product. How do I know you're not Ken Lay from Enron, all excited about nothing?

I think it best for me to speak, as if I was speaking to a 60 year old, or 30 year old, etc. Most of the time, I read no difference

How come everyone looked over the easiest way to solve his problem? There's turn based chess on this site, you can look into your move even in between chores... even in between goofing around and even (this is the amazing point) in between convincing people to have a potential rank...

" A good workman never blames his tools" work harder n improve your game or else play the longer online games version,at least you won't have an excuse about chores and etc etc.........

Hey, please don't watch DBZ, its bad for you!

OMG! I just read two articles about "Dragon Ball" and DBZ. Yet more evidence, with the Harry Potter series, that a nuclear exchange may be the high point of humanity.

I happened upon my son watching DBZ after school one day ... I might have been less disturbed if I'd noticed him humping a neighbour's dog on the front lawn. Anyway, our cable TV service was dropped quickly.

Losers whine about their best.  Winners go home and watch Dragonball Z with the prom queen.

With luck you could win a GM. If you are lucky to find one-lol Your rating  system is just an indication, that falling pregnant would be easier.