jts

Members
  • Content Count

    2,422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by jts

  1. Quote

     

    Some of his colleague GMs say Carlsen doesn’t play chess actually. They say he is not a real chess player. Few players still do play chess “in contrast to Carlsen, who prefers to wait for his opponent to make a mistake rather than try to outplay him as real chess players do,” GM Alexey Dreev (source).

    “That Carlsen isn’t capable of finding new ideas is a long-established commonplace,” GM Vladislav Tkachiev (WhyChess.)

    GM Genna Sosonko rejected to write about Carlsen when approached by Whychess recently. He is of the view that there used to be living legends in chess while the current #1, Carlsen, a player who is a product of computerization, inspires no interest whatsoever for writing about him.

    Wow, harsh statements about World chess #1!

    Many of us may even find it offensive to the chess #1 and his fans. Well, we typically admire #1, no matter what domain they come from. They are held in high regard by the public, but we also tend to be uncritical of them in view of their “authoritiveness,” sort of blind submissiveness that doesn’t see any flaws, nor asks many questions about what and how they do.

    We have to be fair to both sides, and hear their arguments. With that in mind, let’s try to see what’s going on here and what might lie behind those harsh words above. Let’s shed some light on the criticisms and negative views on Carlsen, expressed not only by GM Dreev and GM Tkachiev.

    Digital revolution. Logic vs Magic

    I’ll start with something we all are experiencing right now. We are living the era of science and technology. The progress has been wonderful. But there is a dark side. All kind of “smart” and “intelligent” devices are making more and more decisions for us. As a result, we risk losing ability to produce creative solutions by ourselves.

    There is automation of activities to make our lives easier and that’s fine. But there is also automation of our cognitive processes. We risk deactivation of human modes of thinking that have brought us here to become what we are, a superior intelligent species in this tiny corner of the Universe, namely, creativity, imagination, fantasy, ambiguousness, intuitiveness, curiosity, self-inspiration, empathy.

    None of these qualities, coming from the unconscious brain, can lowly machines possess and be programmed for (instructions to the machines as to what they should slavishly do, repeating it over and over again – thus they can’t be considered an intelligent breed! – may only come from the conscious, logical, and analytical brain).

    The magical thinking (creativity, imagination, etc.) that we have developed over the course of evolution remains exclusively to us, superior humans; that’s why we must cherish them, nurse them, keep them all (and let computers and robots do only menial work for us).

    So let’s take a look at Magnus Carlsen’s play and style in this broader context.

    Human computer

    Carlsen has formed and become the champion in the era of computers. No wonder then his playing style reminds the one of cheap-chip morons. Carlsen’s opponent in the 2013 and 2014 championship matches, GM Anand of India, said in an interview he couldn’t figure out Carlsen’s style. For him, playing Carlsen was like playing a human computer. “His approach resembles… I hesitate to say… computer.”

    While his technique of play is effective – he is a high-scoring point machine – it’s not so effective at stirring creative imagination.

    Do you feel a thrill when you play over his games? Probably not.

    Chess as art

    The role of chess art (if we may consider chess being art in part) should not be all about winning (at least to mehappy.png). Its role should be to express the triumph of the human spirit over the mundane and the déjà-vu… Its role should be to carry beauty and ideas at the same time; to ignite and create; to inspire and stimulate our imagination.

    Computers and computer-like thinking can in no way do that.

    Now look at the choice of words Carlsen himself made in the press conference after the win against Gelfand, Zurich 2014, as he was commenting on the game, “logical move,” “natural move,” “computer-like move.”

    Just a coincidence?

    Inspiration and new ideas, or lack of

    “Magnus doesn’t have ‘it’ when it comes to inspiration.  He may hold the title for years to come, but while he does the chess world may very well remain cold and lifeless.” (Chris Wainscott on chess.com)

    Not only Carlsen doesn’t inspire us, he himself doesn’t seem to get inspiration.

    As GM Tkatchiev said above, Carlsen wasn’t capable of finding new ideas.

    Here is Anand again. What surprised him most about Carlsen (during the 2013 Chennai match) was how he had changed so little. “I know how he plays. But I expected him to come out and try something different… Usually for a World Championship match, people work on something different… maybe something to surprise the opponent. Carlsen just stayed the same.”

    Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction. One must destroy familiar ways of perceiving and behaving to see, contemplate, and design anew. –Pablo Picasso

    Do you see many brilliant ideas waged by Magnus over the board? Well, probably not.

    What does Carlsen himself think of inspiration and new ideas?

    “You can play good games and you can win, but flashes of true inspiration are very hard to come by. It feels like making a big scientific discovery in a way. It doesn’t happen very often, at least not with me.” Fair enough. (source here)

    Now think of a true artist, or a genius, who is without inspiration and new constructive ideas. That simply cannot be true. Period.

    The principle mark of genius is not perfection but originality, the opening of new frontiers.–Arthur Koestler

    Risk

    Among the elements that should be considered to describe the playing style of a chess player, risk is a major indication of it. By the way, risk is our intentional interaction with uncertainty through exposure to potentially harmful, but also rewarding situations by being creative and original.

    In the recent years Carlsen has got used to winning in an unassuming manner, without taking the slightest risk. From a creative point, it is equal to suicide. Let’s give word to chess #1 again.

    “I played solidly. And I am pretty happy with what I got. Very solid position. No weaknesses. As the game went on he started to drift a bit, I thought as long as there is no risk (all highlights in the article mine) I should try and win it.” (the Chennai post-match press conference).

    Creativity takes courage, –Henri Matisse

    Product of his time

    We have seen how Carlsen’s play resembles one of automaton. It doesn’t change much and is lacking fresh ideas. No risk, no inspiration (in this view GM Dreev and Tkachiev’s words could be now seen from a different perspective).

    But to be fair, Crlsen is the product of the time. A time that wants everything quantified. A time that has established the system that praises players for rating and results, and not for the beauty of their games. In such a system inventive and artistic effort is limited to a minimum. No imagination, no original creations. (If you dared to play courageously and creatively, your rating would soon plummet and less and less often you would see yourself be invited for tournaments).

    The legendary GM Bronstein once said that chess has ceased to exist as a game, as a lively play. Chess has long been reduced to struggle for space. It seems that’s exactly what Carlsen has developed, a sense of how to take up and effectively use space on the chessboard for his men. Here is Bronstein, “the majority of chess players today know only how to set groups of pieces. They don’t think in a creative way any more. Groups of pieces fight for some square or sector of squares on the board.”

    That way, chess, devoid of magic we used to see before (say in the games of the Magician from Riga or the Sorcerer’s apprentice Bronstein), is left to the machines that we foolishly praise.

    So chess is lost to humanity. What human activity we have enjoyed up to now will be next victim?

    The fundamental question here is, will human intellect and traditional way of thinking magic be able to free itself from automation? To be able to stay in control and use machines only as good servants, not our deciders.

    Or we have already become part of the equation of doom?

     

    https://www.chess.com/blog/RoaringPawn/magnus-carlsen-a-genius-or-automaton

    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/automatization.html

     

  2. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jerry,

    I will have to look. Obviously, the search engines are almost worthless since Gates is a darling to the owners. But stuff is out there. (Search for Robert F. Kennedy and Gates or India and Gates for easy lists if you can find something that makes sense in the search results.)

    But we can start by Gates being a major funder of the WHO. From what I read or heard online somewhere, first place donor to WHO is the US. Second place is Gates. This is out of the whole world.

    I'll see if I can dig up a few credible sources with articles or reports.

    Michael

    This may be a start of the list.

    https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html

     

  3. Quote

     

    Absolutely! There are far too many advantages to list, but I'll try to hit the top ten here.

    Sick of being healthy? Cigarettes will clear that right up for you.

    Sick of looking young & vibrant? Cigarettes will wreck that look as fast as you can say *cough cough hack wheeze*

    Ever get tired of smelling like you've showered recently? Cigarettes may be the answer you've been looking for!

    Do you wish your clothes smelled like you rolled around in an ash tray before you put them on? Just smoke!

    Have you ever looked at someone with chronic lung disease and wished you could be like them? Puff away my friend! You'll find yourself in the hospital in no time!

    Don't you hate it when you're surrounded by your friends & family out on the porch? Just light one up & watch them abandon you like you're a sinking ship! It's great!

    I don't know about you, but I absolutely HATE being able to taste my food. It's disgusting! A pack a day habit will fix all your taste buds so that everything tastes exactly like a bland mush of ash & shame.

    How about those fingernails? Who in their right mind likes them to be clear & healthy looking when they could be yellowed and gross?

    Enjoy your money? Yeah right, who does that?! Spend anywhere from 5 to 10 bucks for a pack of rolled death sticks! 20 to a box!

    You know how much it sucks when you run, and you can breathe easily? Smokes will fix that right up & give you an amazing wracking cough that'll be the envy of all your loved ones!

     

     

  4. 12 hours ago, atlashead said:

    I would, if you give man a full education they act on full virtue.  To learn that the materials they chose could have ~become a particle accelerator instead of a massive battery imo is one of the moralest things one can do.

    I don't know what the Objectivist/correct response to the question in the thread title is but it reminds me of a little story.

    Nana Mouskouri's talent for music was discovered at the age of 7. She took music lessons but at the age of 12 her parents were too poor to be able to afford her music lessons. The music teacher was so impressed by Nana's talent for music that she gave music lessons for free. Later Nana went to singing school for 8 years.

    Nana went all over the world, singing in the language of each country, 15 languages. She set a record for the most music sales, worldwide, for a female singer. Not bad for someone born with a defective vocal cord.

     

  5. I am glad that there are people telling the truth about Islam. Among them are David Wood, Robert Spencer, Anni Cyrus, Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Ali Sina, Craig Winn, Jamie Glazov, and others.

    Islam is not defined by the behavior of Muslims, just as Objectivism is not defined by the behavior of Objectivists. David Wood explains.

     

  6. 21 hours ago, anthony said:

    I.E. A "great mind" (for chess, here) is the precondition and cause of an independent mind? I'd check that. A comparatively quite normal mind, intelligence-wise, also requires absolute independence - and I have known quite brilliant persons who showed little true independence in their action and opinions. So no, the capacity of a mind has no bearing on independence. The key word is "always", not only limited to some narrow pursuit or activity.

    The cause of intellectual independence is volition. The justification may be great mind.

    The next question is can a person of average intelligence justify intellectual independence?  (Never take anything on trust. This move is wrong.)