Youre hidden message, which I have pointed out with parentheses, proves without a doubt you are a shill. As I said, you worshippers of technology are only posting to discredit the one who exposed your silicon idols
Sorry, I didn't get your sarcasm before. It is sometimess hard if it is written and not verbal. Thank you for the clarification by going way over the top with it, though =D
I read people here that actually meant what they said when they wrote similar things like you did. On a serious note though people sometimes fail to understand that humans have their strengths in other areas than machines. Especially in chess there are concepts that are way too complex to be programmed into an engine even though people like the book author above put a lot of time improving the numbers by defining centipawn values in different ways in order to make them better. Fortunately humans don't need that because the brain knows more ways than conscious logic to work around a problem. That is why I find it ridiculous to try to impose machine concepts on a human brain as the tables of "The secret of chess" try to do. Why try to make humans machine-like? Those defined values for certain positions help calculating (which is the strength of a computer, that is why there are calculators for complex multiplications and such) but not finding moves the "easy" human way. What the boundaries of neuronal networks on which A0 runs are have yet to be shown, though as they try to emulate a human, not the other way round. Your sarcasm implies that you make the same point, the only one with silicon idols in this thread is the guy who prides himself with competing with silicon based chess players and boasts about his (not yet proven) ability to beat them and tries to think like them but better. Sorry again for being so dense as to not detect your in hindsight obvious sarcasm.
On the contrary, machines handle those very well: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=574014&t=52565
It was ME who made the famous lever concept of Hans Kmoch a success in SF.
ONLY precise values do wrok in SF, and SF is what a scientific test for the validity of my book comes closest to.
How would it be detrimental to a human to know that levers on the 5th and 6th ranks have specific different values?
It is useful, of course.
You should be greatful my book makes learning easier and more precise, and not the other way round.
I am playing SF, but I am playing it in a HUMAN way, my book restores human thought, you want just mechanical shuffling and repetition?
hey tsetkov is this what they taught you in diplomacy school? you just ignore what smerdon said because he didn't say it in the review you are so fond of using to sell your book, and call me a liar for merely cutting and pasting the quote from his blog. do you even understand what the word "lie" means? i would think an actual diplomat would. and all you do for "evidence" is put more games against your home computer up. maybe you don't understand what evidence is, either. to repeat, smerdon said that, he said it on his blog, and i would an apology, and i would like you to explain why we should ignore what he said about the usefulness of your book, while only paying attention to the positive parts of the review you quote.
He’s not a diplomat and he never has been: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bulgarian_diplomats