Hymie_Wallman wrote:
This seems like an interesting idea. Is this guy that posted the announcement ever going to come back? How can we contact him?
You could probably send him a private message. He was logged on today, so he is active.
Testers wanted for chess Meta Theory
Sort:
It´s been tried before, quite successfully. The three testers were named Polgar, and they apparently had a whale of a time being guinea pigs.
Hymie_Wallman wrote:
Does this testing involve any injections or taking untested or unapproved medications?
Are you joking or serious? Its a new method to approach and study chess that he developed and wants to test to see its effectiveness on players. Your not injecting any substance...
KingsEye wrote:
Hymie_Wallman wrote:
Does this testing involve any injections or taking untested or unapproved medications?
Are you joking or serious? Its a new method to approach and study chess that he developed and wants to test to see its effectiveness on players. Your not injecting any substance...
Of course he´s serious. Chess is a sport, and no serious sportsman these days can afford not to dope heavily. It´s just the price you have to pay for seeing your rating go through the roof, I wouldn´t worry about it.
Hymie_Wallman wrote:
How do you know? Do you think the OP would tell you everything in that little blurb he typed?
For all we know you could sign up for this thing and be walking into something out of "Hostel."
He clearly outlined that the key to the method is his unique approach to chess study and play that he developed and details in the 22 page PDF file he'll be sending his beta testers and then following up with his beta testers throughout the year to ensure they are using the approach as written in the PDF file. As well, he can't force you to do anything you don't want to so why have any concern over that to begin with?
Hymie_Wallman wrote:
Because it'll be harder to refuse when he's already got me strapped in a chair and bombarding me with propaganda like a chess version of Alex in Clockwork Orange.
And why are you acting like such a shill for the OP? Are you in on this scheme too? You're not telling us the whole story, are you?
What? I'm just using some basic reasoning and logic here and reading what he wrote and coming to some obvious conclusions. You seem to be abit paranoid sir. Have a good day. =)
GameBrain wrote:
The product represents (...) perusal of over 200,000 written pages to narrow down the topic of chess to a 22 page .PDF document.
Testers are required to be able to perform basic math calculations, so I´ve done one:
22 pages of your PDF contain the essence of 200,000 written pages. Each of your PDF pages therefore contains the content of approximately 9000 pages of the originals.
Your opening post here probably contains about 1000 words. It would have been thoughtful of you (and enlightening for us) had you applied the same reduction to one nine-thousandth, and merely used one ninth of a word for the entire post.
Thanks for all your comments, pro and con. :)
The guy asking to have a chess microchip implant in his brain made me laugh.
On "preconceptions", I am not talking about understanding and "technique", I am talking about holding an irrational "belief" about the game that blinds you to what is true and what is not true...
I was rated 2000+ U.S.C.F at one time, and near 2300 in postal play. I made the mistake of playing while still recovering from an illness, and several bad tournaments caused my rating to plummet to a 1700 floor. (evidently, my 5 or 6 year hiatus from chess caused the USCF to "forget" that my rating had been over 2000 which would actually have given me a "floor" of 1800, but whatever.)
The truth is, I WANT MY POINTS BACK, and have been researching a way to do it. I did post some earlier attempts at this in the DOWNLOAD section of Chess.com. Take a look if you want, although the new stuff is NOTHING like the old stuff.
I am an independent Complex Systems Analyst, so I can assure you that anything I come with has a fair dose of thought, analyses and mathematics to back it up.
What is put forth in these 22 pages of mine, is the ESSENCE of what modern chess is, and how it functions. Think of it as SUPER FUNDAMENTALS of the game.
Testers will read the pages through, once a day for 10 consecutive days. We will then work out any questions or "kinks" in our understanding.
The rest of the project will revolve around the testers playing the equivalent of 10,000 hours of study time. Any game played whose total length is 3 minutes or longer, is equivalent to 4 hours of study. This equates to 2500 games of chess, which each tester will have to play. At 3 minutes per game, that is 125 hours. If you figure an hour a day at this, completion time to master the theories is 4 months. Figure tournament playing time needed to raise ratings, and you get about a year total....
If this seems like a lot, compare it to something that Gm's have cooked up, such as Ziatdinov's ""GM-RAM", and it is child's play...
Also, you'll never have to crack open another chess book, ever again, if you don't want to.
If you think it is impossible, I will note two examples: Johnny Lakdawala (brother of IM Cyrus Lakdawala) reached 2400 USCF with practically NO formal opening or endgames knowledge. Charles Diebert made near 2400 USCF, playing exclusively, the Blackmar-Diemer gambit as white. Both of these players use quite a few concepts similar to mine, and both did it with very little in the way of "formal" chess "knowledge".
GAMEBRAIN
ROFL.... No, no drugs or brainwashing will be used, although I DO suggest that participants of legal age, take a SIP or two of an alcoholic beverage before a game, to "loosen" one up...
On the length of my posts, I was testing attention spans....
Cool response, you´ve gone up in my estimation, and I wish you success!
A statement with which I´d disagree however is "Any game played whose total length is 3 minutes or longer, is equivalent to 4 hours of study." Isn´t the reverse true? I used to play mostly blitz, and never really improved; now I play long games and analyze each one, and I´m getting slowly better, also because I do some work on tactics and endgames most days.
GameBrain wrote:
"I was rated 2000+ U.S.C.F at one time, and near 2300 in postal play. I made the mistake of playing while still recovering from an illness, and several bad tournaments caused my rating to plummet to a 1700 floor. (evidently, my 5 or 6 year hiatus from chess caused the USCF to "forget" that my rating had been over 2000 which would actually have given me a "floor" of 1800, but whatever."
Your highest online rating is 1813. Your rating is currently 1743. Online ratings are somewhat inflated, so your actual rating is somewhere around 1550-1600. I do not believe for one second that you could go from being a USCF Expert and Postal Master level player to being a Class B player. Please stop with the bull. Did you know, for example, that there are approximately 170 Quadrillion (170 followed by 24 zeros) possible chess positions after 10 moves? I do not, and nor will I ever, believe that you could condense the essence of chess, the thing that Kasparov once said that "five people in the world truly understand", into a mere 22 pages.
Do you have a link for that Kasparov quote? I hear it a lot, but have never seen any evidence of him saying it.
For all i know, this person could be taking names and emails to set up more fake accounts.
Tighearna_Ui_Meadhra wrote:
GameBrain wrote:
"I was rated 2000+ U.S.C.F at one time, and near 2300 in postal play. I made the mistake of playing while still recovering from an illness, and several bad tournaments caused my rating to plummet to a 1700 floor. (evidently, my 5 or 6 year hiatus from chess caused the USCF to "forget" that my rating had been over 2000 which would actually have given me a "floor" of 1800, but whatever."
Your highest online rating is 1813. Your rating is currently 1743. Online ratings are somewhat inflated, so your actual rating is somewhere around 1550-1600. I do not believe for one second that you could go from being a USCF Expert and Postal Master level player to being a Class B player. Please stop with the bull. Did you know, for example, that there are approximately 170 Quadrillion (170 followed by 24 zeros) possible chess positions after 10 moves? I do not, and nor will I ever, believe that you could condense the essence of chess, the thing that Kasparov once said that "five people in the world truly understand", into a mere 22 pages.
Well according to his USCF profile he had a highest rating of 1933 standard, and 1947 quick. Both his standard and quick ratings plummeted in 2001 and continued so in the following years even up to recently. So while I don't see any evidence of him being over 2000+ he was definitely over 1900 and his rating did take a sharp nosedive in 2001. Doesn't seem to be that far fetched a story to me.
Not everyone's OTB rating corresponds well with chess.com ratings.. I'm a solid 1850-1900 OTB player and have a devil of a time keeping my online ratings over 1800.. I think I just don't take online seriously.
Scottrf wrote:
Do you have a link for that Kasparov quote? I hear it a lot, but have never seen any evidence of him saying it.
After a quick internet search I couldn't find the exact quote, but I did find that the "Big 5" he mentioned were Anand, Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik, and Ivanchuk.
Tighearna_Ui_Meadhra wrote:
GameBrain wrote:
"I was rated 2000+ U.S.C.F at one time, and near 2300 in postal play. I made the mistake of playing while still recovering from an illness, and several bad tournaments caused my rating to plummet to a 1700 floor. (evidently, my 5 or 6 year hiatus from chess caused the USCF to "forget" that my rating had been over 2000 which would actually have given me a "floor" of 1800, but whatever."
Your highest online rating is 1813. Your rating is currently 1743. Online ratings are somewhat inflated, so your actual rating is somewhere around 1550-1600. I do not believe for one second that you could go from being a USCF Expert and Postal Master level player to being a Class B player. Please stop with the bull. Did you know, for example, that there are approximately 170 Quadrillion (170 followed by 24 zeros) possible chess positions after 10 moves? I do not, and nor will I ever, believe that you could condense the essence of chess, the thing that Kasparov once said that "five people in the world truly understand", into a mere 22 pages.
His 1743 rating is a Live Standard rating which is usually the lowest of the various ratings chess.com assigns. You very rarely see anybody with a Live Standard rating over 1900. Additionally his rating is based on 21 wins and 2 losses, so it has not stabilized - if he continued to play it would probably rise more.
Thanks but no thanks; I'd rather spend a year watching chess.com videos.
Who says you can't do that too? Anyways, cheers!