Dead Man's Chess

[Malerin]

Here's the story, in a nutshell:

An amateur chess player and occultist (Wolfgang Eisenbeiss) has an idea for a supernatural chess game. A medium he knew (Robert Rollans) with no experience playing chess will contact a dead grandmaster and play a game (by mail) with a living grandmaster. Surprisingly, Grandmaster Viktor Korchnoi (ranked 3rd in the world at the time, and now a World Senior Chess Champion) agreed to play.

The game started in 1985, with the medium claiming to be in contact with Geza Maroczy, ranked 3rd in the world in 1905. The game took 8 years to finish, with the "ghost" resigning after 48 moves. Viktor Korchnoi had this to say about the match: "During the opening phase Maroczy showed weakness. His play is old-fashioned. But I must confess that my last moves have not been too convincing. I am not sure I will win. He has compensated the faults of the opening by a strong end-game. In the end-game the ability of a player shows up and my opponent plays very well."

Years later, when asked about the game: "I asked Viktor Korchnoi if he thought he had really played against the ghost of Geza Maroczy. 'Well, you can never be sure,' he said. But my impression was he thought there was a good chance that he had." — Dutch grandmaster Hans Ree

""Maroczy plays in an outmoded style that nobody uses today, but he's tough," said Korchnoi.

http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/2007/07/ghosts-of-chessplayers-past.html

I should note that the write of the blogspot was a 5 time US champ who thought Maroczy botched the opening. He had no comment about the middle/end game.

For the whole article:
http://www.thesurvivalfiles.com/Top-40/case24_Soulmate.pdf

Now, how to explain this? It is no mean feat to play a Grandmaster to 48 moves and make him doubt that he will win. Korchnoi, by his own words, was playing against an old-fashioned player who he felt might beat him. In 1985, chess computers had yet to play at grandmaster level, and the top computers that competed in tournaments were usually sponsored by IBM or CRAY. They continued to improve, but it's doubtful Rollans had access to a top-of-the line tournement level chess computer in the late 80's-early 90's whose play would seem old fasioned to Korchnoi. There was no money at stake and the game has largely been forgotten.

The game is here, if you care to watch it. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1486372&kpage=3
Korchnoi wins with king and 3 pawns to Rollans 2. I play a little bit of chess and it struck me as a very tight game, all the way through. Korchnoi kept the pawn advantage and eventually prevailed with it.

Could Korchnoi have faked the whole thing, mailing moves to himself? Possible, but it would have involved the medium Rollans (who died shortly after the game with nothing to suggest any fraud was committed), have lasted 8 years, and what would have been the point? Why go to all the trouble and risk the ridicule?

Was the medium a closet grandmaster, who could make his style of play appear "old fashioned"? Again, doubtful. Grandmaster (or near grandmaster) level players are pretty rare, compete a lot, and usually don't disguise themselves as mediums.

Was there a third party (parties) involved? This would have been a collaboration between Rollans and an unknown Grandmaster/near grandmaster level player(s). Again though, for what gain? Rollans died without revealing any shenanigans and no one has stepped forward claiming to be the mysterious grandmaster "ghost" player. Still, this is the most plausible normal explanation.

As a side note, Rollans also knew personal details of Maroczy's life that would have been hard to come by, though not impossible.

Interesting, no?

[AntiTelharsic]

No. I'm guessing since it took 8 years it wasn't done in anything like a controlled environment. More woo. You're on a roll (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1593757)!

[Wolfman]

Well, I'd raise the following points, all of which rather leaped out at me as I read the article:

First, I'm extremely curious as to why your summary entirely ignores Eisenbeiss's role. It was his idea to set up this experiment. It was he who communicated the moves back and forth between the two players. It was he who compiled a list of supposed claims made by Rollans about the deceased player.

Now, consider the following scenario. Eisenbeiss sets up a hoax -- either for personal gain, or as an elaborate practical joke. He chooses a dead chess Grandmaster, and does extensive research on that person's life (he either does this himself, or enlists accomplices to help him do so). He also gets records of the specific games played by that grandmaster.

He then enlists the support of a "psychic", who will claim to contact the dead player. And another Grandmaster (who may be aware of this, or may be an entirely unwitting dupe).

Everything is now in place to pull this off, exactly as described.

It was noted that the opening of the game seemed "old-fashioned", typical perhaps of a player from Maroczy's time. But please note that A) the ghost had the opening move, and B) Eisenbeiss had full access to Maroczy's game histories (if my theory is correct). Then it is a relatively simple matter for at least the first 8-10 moves to compare the current game to games that Maroczy had played in the past, and simply play the same moves. It would only be as the game progresses that it would veer into new territory, and at this point they need to bring in a real, live grandmaster.

After its all done, Eisenbeiss then produces a "document" that he claims is written by his pet psychic, with lots of statements and facts in it that can be tested. And he very fairly says, "Oh, let someone else who knows more than me do the research, and verify whether it is true or not" (knowing full well that it would, in fact, be verified, since he'd already done the research and chosen the facts based on that).

Here are a few critical questions:

* Why did the game have to be done at a distance? Why not have the game done face-to-face?

"It would have been too wearing for the psychic to engage in an extended communication with the ghost, and play a complete game in the manner you suggest". Yet...according to the article about this, "In response to Eisenbeiss's request for some personal information, [Rollans] produced 38 hand-written pages over one afternoon and an evening". If he could manage 38 hand-written pages of detailed communication in one day, he'd certainly be able to handle a chess game.

* Why was Eisenbeiss the go-between, and the only apparent witness to Rollans' gameplay? Why not choose someone more neutral...and why not have witnesses present when the new move is given to Rollans, and he communicates the new move?

This just screams manipulation to me; in fact, if I desired to set up a scam like this, this is exactly the structure I'd find most desirable.

Derren Brown did a TV show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evZmpsl3jI0) which is quite relevant to this...he played nine chess players at the same time, some of whom were grandmasters, and his own chess ability was average -- and managed to win 5 out of nine games. He could easily have claimed to be a psychic, channeling the spirit of some ancient grandmaster...and he'd have had many people believe him. The players themselves stated quite unequivocally that he'd played at a grandmaster's level of skill. Yet the solution to his victory is very simple, and obvious once you see it.

I'd consider this scenario to be even simpler. Remove all observers. Avoid a real-time game. Choose the "deceased player" for yourself, so you have time to do all the necessary research. Then go ahead and hold the match.

[Malerin]

It would only be as the game progresses that it would veer into new territory, and at this point they need to bring in a real, live grandmaster.


That is what I said was the most plausible natural explanation as well. However, getting a grandmaster to spend years playing a mail game of chess as part of a hoax seems like a bit of a stretch. Why would someone go to that much effort to perpetuate a hoax? What did Eisenbeiss expect to gain from all this? The game garnered almost no publicity. There was no money riding on the game. The kind of preparation you're talking about is very extensive.

After its all done, Eisenbeiss then produces a "document" that he claims is written by his pet psychic, with lots of statements and facts in it that can be tested. And he very fairly says, "Oh, let someone else who knows more than me do the research, and verify whether it is true or not" (knowing full well that it would, in fact, be verified, since he'd already done the research and chosen the facts based on that).

Then the psycic is in on it as well, which makes three people who have kept their silence for 15 years now- Eisenbeiss, the mysterious chess player, and the medium (who died without revealing any attempt at a hoax). You would think this was a master heist, not a chess game with nothing riding on it.

Here are a few critical questions:

* Why did the game have to be done at a distance? Why not have the game done face-to-face?

In the article, it said the grandmaster was busy with tournements.

"It would have been too wearing for the psychic to engage in an extended communication with the ghost, and play a complete game in the manner you suggest". Yet...according to the article about this, "In response to Eisenbeiss's request for some personal information, [Rollans] produced 38 hand-written pages over one afternoon and an evening". If he could manage 38 hand-written pages of detailed communication in one day, he'd certainly be able to handle a chess game.

Unless the communication comes in fits and starts. Also, a flood of information doesn't help you in a chess game playe through the mail. This is not very compelling.

Why was Eisenbeiss the go-between, and the only apparent witness to Rollans' gameplay? Why not choose someone more neutral...and why not have witnesses present when the new move is given to Rollans, and he communicates the new move?

If it took place over 8 years, the moves may have come at any time in a given day, week, or month. But they could have video-recorded it. It would be suspect, but better than no record at all. Agree partly with you here.

Derren Brown did a TV show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evZmpsl3jI0) which is quite relevant to this...he played nine chess players at the same time, some of whom were grandmasters, and his own chess ability was average -- and managed to win 5 out of nine games. He could easily have claimed to be a psychic, channeling the spirit of some ancient grandmaster...and he'd have had many people believe him. The players themselves stated quite unequivocally that he'd played at a grandmaster's level of skill. Yet the solution to his victory is very simple, and obvious once you see it.

That was a fascinating video, but I think it would be much harder to fake someone out in a play-by-mail game spanning several years. Korchnoi would have suspected something fishy and would have been mentally prepared for a mysterious stand-in who could play at or near grandmaster level. In a one-on-one game, there would have been no chance for the kind of trickery Brown did in that video. They would have needed someone who knew the game and could play competitively against a grandmaster.

They could have approached a grandmaster who had lost to Korchnoi (or just wanted to play him) with an oppurtunity to play him again. Upon losing, that person might not want to reveal who they were. But why stretch the game out over so many years? And 15 years later, still keep hush-hush about it all? I doubt anyone would even care at this point. The fact that nobody has stepped forward surprises me.

Are we agreed that they would have needed a pretty high-level player to pull this off?

[devnull]

Given it was played by mail, even in 1985 there were chess playing programs that were very, very good indeed.... Fast computers are required to play good chess *in realtime*, but even an old 8 bit processor could play a good game given weeks of processing time.

http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=51382

http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=65953

[Wolfman]

That was a fascinating video, but I think it would be much harder to fake someone out in a play-by-mail game spanning several years. Korchnoi would have suspected something fishy and would have been mentally prepared for a mysterious stand-in who could play at or near grandmaster level. In a one-on-one game, there would have been no chance for the kind of trickery Brown did in that video. They would have needed someone who knew the game and could play competitively against a grandmaster.Sorry...I don't get your "logic" here at all. It is easier to fake something in a one-on-one game where any outside help will be obvious, and where there's no chance to go away and think about it or get advice from someone else...but harder to fake it when it is impossible to verify who actually has made the moves in question, and when there's tons of time to gain assistance and advice without anyone knowing?

They could have approached a grandmaster who had lost to Korchnoi (or just wanted to play him) with an oppurtunity to play him again. Upon losing, that person might not want to reveal who they were. But why stretch the game out over so many years? And 15 years later, still keep hush-hush about it all? I doubt anyone would even care at this point. The fact that nobody has stepped forward surprises me. I'd have one very simple reason as to why nobody has stepped forward -- pride. There were, at most, three or four people involved in this hoax. All of them, to one degree or another, have their reputations at stake. Saying "Oh, yeah, we lied about the whole thing" rather ruins their credibility, don't you think?

And as to the time thing...I don't see any greater benefit to completing a real game over eight years as opposed to a fake game. Whatever benefit is derived from the successful completion of the game -- if it is in fact a real game -- is exactly the same benefit that will be derived from faking it, but making people believe it was real.
Are we agreed that they would have needed a pretty high-level player to pull this off?Sure. What this comes down to is very simple.

With the way this was set up, it would be extremely easy to fake the whole thing. I can, off the top of my head, think of three different scenarios (or rather, variations on the scenario I mentioned above) using the given information that would fully fit the facts, and require nothing supernatural at all. So why lead to the rather unwarranted assumption that there was something supernatural here?

And I've gotta' question your credibility, when you try to claim that it would be more difficult to cheat in a game like this -- with nobody observing the moves, and relying entirely on claims made by the man who came up with the idea in the first place -- than in a live game where any outside help or interaction would be blatantly obvious.

[Malerin]

Sorry...I don't get your "logic" here at all. It is easier to fake something in a one-on-one game where any outside help will be obvious, and where there's no chance to go away and think about it or get advice from someone else...but harder to fake it when it is impossible to verify who actually has made the moves in question, and when there's tons of time to gain assistance and advice without anyone knowing?

It would have been very hard to do what Brown did- play two Grandmasters off each other by feeding them the other's moves. My point here is that, to pull this off, they would have needed someone who could challenge a grandmaster to a reasonable degree. It doesn't matter because you already agree with that point.

I'd have one very simple reason as to why nobody has stepped forward -- pride. There were, at most, three or four people involved in this hoax. All of them, to one degree or another, have their reputations at stake. Saying "Oh, yeah, we lied about the whole thing" rather ruins their credibility, don't you think?

But this ignores the fact that quite a lot of people brag about an accomplishment. Police often catch criminals who brag to their friends about crimes they've committed. So what we've got are 3 or 4 people who arrange an elaborate scheme to manufacture a "ghost game" of chess for no material gain (maybe if the "ghost" had won, there would have been some publicity, but 8 years after the start of the game, who would have been following it? Why drag the game out so long? If I were running a scam like this, I would want the game ove fairly quickly to capitalize on the press of the game itself. But as far as I can tell, there wasn't even a press announcement before the game started!). There are three reasons I can think of to go to this much trouble:
1. Money- not an issue here
2. Fame- again, not an issue, esp. for the medium who died shortly after the conclusion. If there was any publicity surrounding the game I can't find it and don't remember it (was 16 when the game started). Eisenbeiss is not a recognized name the way some psychics are. In fact, there's no information about his life at all that I could find.
3. The thrill of pulling off a hoax. But if you're fascinated with the occult, as Eisenbeiss apparently was, why try for the hoax at all? Esienbeiss wasn't a practicing anything, as far as we can tell. Just some guy who liked chess and the occult. If suspicion should fall anywhere, I would think it would be on the medium, who might think he could gain some name recognition from all this. But then you have the problem of the medium setting the whole thing up AFTER being contacted by Eisenbeiss.

In your mind, why do you think these 3 or 4 people went to all this trouble?



And as to the time thing...I don't see any greater benefit to completing a real game over eight years as opposed to a fake game. Whatever benefit is derived from the successful completion of the game -- if it is in fact a real game -- is exactly the same benefit that will be derived from faking it, but making people believe it was real.

If you were going to pull a hoax, I would think you would end the game as quickly as you could to garner as much publicity as possible. Now if the reason for doing all this is just to see if it could be done, then the timing isn't an issue, other than to point out that 3 or 4 people stayed with this whole thing for 8 years just to see if they could pull it off.

With the way this was set up, it would be extremely easy to fake the whole thing. I can, off the top of my head, think of three different scenarios (or rather, variations on the scenario I mentioned above) using the given information that would fully fit the facts, and require nothing supernatural at all. So why lead to the rather unwarranted assumption that there was something supernatural here?

Extremely easy? The materialistic explanation has a lot of holes in it. You're supposing a conspiracy of 3 or more people (one of which is a Grandmaster or high ranking Master who's reputation would have suffered if anyone blabbed) spanning years for no monetary gain and no publicity. That doesn't sound very plausible at all.

And I've gotta' question your credibility, when you try to claim that it would be more difficult to cheat in a game like this -- with nobody observing the moves, and relying entirely on claims made by the man who came up with the idea in the first place -- than in a live game where any outside help or interaction would be blatantly obvious.

Oh, I admit you can scam a grandmaster by doing all this, but again, what would be the point of it all? They carried this thing through for 8 years just to say to themselves (and no one else), "We did it!"?

[rjh01]

If you play a game of chess against a champion chess player they will know that they are playing against a computer within a few moves.

There are a standard opening moves. Both sides could have stuck to one of those. Easy to look them up in a few chess books. Then get together a few good chess players and ask them what is the best move?

[PingOfPong]

You're supposing a conspiracy of 3 or more people (one of which is a Grandmaster or high ranking Master who's reputation would have suffered if anyone blabbed) spanning years for no monetary gain and no publicity. That doesn't sound very plausible at all.


Do you or do you not believe that people are capable of lying just for the hell of it?

[Kevin_Lowe]

The relevant question is not "is it clear why someone would pull off a hoax like this?".

The relevant question is "is it more implausible that someone pulled off a hoax like this, or that the ghost of a dead chess grandmaster was channelled to play a game of chess?".

Given that hoaxers are a known reality, whereas the evidence for the existence of ghosts who do anything useful like play chess is virtually nonexistent, I think that a hoax has to be held as more plausible.

[JoeEllison]

If you play a game of chess against a champion chess player they will know that they are playing against a computer within a few moves.

There are a standard opening moves. Both sides could have stuck to one of those. Easy to look them up in a few chess books. Then get together a few good chess players and ask them what is the best move?

Over eight years, and especially involving someone not known to the chess world, it would be simple as all hell to ask someone different for advice on the next move each time.

This isn't even a particularly impressive hoax, and I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to fall for it, unless they were already stupid enough to believe in ghosts and mediums. If you aren't already handicapped by superstition, this scam falls apart immediately.

[Civilized Worm]

Extremely easy? The materialistic explanation has a lot of holes in it. You're supposing a conspiracy of 3 or more people (one of which is a Grandmaster or high ranking Master who's reputation would have suffered if anyone blabbed) spanning years for no monetary gain and no publicity. That doesn't sound very plausible at all.


You're right, a chess playing ghost is clearly much more plausible. :rolleyes:

[Malerin]

You're right, a chess playing ghost is clearly much more plausible. :rolleyes:

If you're already predisposed towards materialism, then you WILL roll your eyes. But if you have an open mind about life-after-death, the natural explanation will leave something to be desired, because there is a competing theory.

[Civilized Worm]

When there are two or more competing theories, go with the one that makes the least assumptions.

[Ashles]

If you're already predisposed towards materialism, then you WILL roll your eyes. But if you have an open mind about life-after-death, the natural explanation will leave something to be desired, because there is a competing theory.
Just to save a lot of time... are you intending to trawl the internet and post any bizarre story that could be either paranormal or explained away fairly simply with mundane reasons?

And then complain every time the mundane explanation is given citing either our "closed mindedness" or predisposition "towards materialism".
Because this could get old real quick.

It's not exactly a process we have never seen before.

That's why examples which minimise the possibility of mundane explanations are far more interesting - hence our preference for looking at unusual results produced in controlled settings. Testable, evidenced claims.

And, once again, not every imaginable explanation carries equal weight - maybe invisible leprechauns whispered the moves into Rollans' ears.
It's an alternate theory with just as much evidence as the talking-to-the-dead one. Why would you reject that theory?

[Malerin]

The relevant question is not "is it clear why someone would pull off a hoax like this?".

The relevant question is "is it more implausible that someone pulled off a hoax like this, or that the ghost of a dead chess grandmaster was channelled to play a game of chess?".

Very true.

Given that hoaxers are a known reality, whereas the evidence for the existence of ghosts who do anything useful like play chess is virtually nonexistent, I think that a hoax has to be held as more plausible.

Well, what is the reality behind why hoaxers do what they do? Why do Sylvia Brown, John Edwards, and James Von Praug spend years duping a gullible public? (they're really nothing except glorified grifters). They're all very rich.

So then, the first question is, how elaborate was this? It involved at least 3 people: Eisenbeiss, who set the game up, the medium, and a chess player good enough to make his play seem "old-fashioned" AND make a Grandmaster doubt he would win at some point in the game.
** Note: Crowdchess, which had hundreds of players voting on the best move, lost to Grandmaster Gawain Jones, who is not even ranked in the top 100. By the 14th move, Jones was winning, a knight up in the game. (http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/2008/05/can-crowds-wisdom-beat-chess-master.html) Viktor Korchnoi was ranked #3 in the world at the time of the game, and was never ahead by more than 1 pawn. Can we say it's safe to assume that in order to make a grandmaster doubt he'll win, you have to be a VERY good player? A group of people "advising" on moves just doesn't seem to do it.
- It involved fairly extensive biographical research that took an indepedent historian (Sebestyen) 80 hours to discover, and involved travelling to Hungargy and interviewing Maroczy's children.
- It involved another chess player who could convince both Korchnoi and a chess commentator (Helmut Metz) the style of play was "old fashioned" AND play a tight game against Korchnoi, making him doubt he would win at one point.
- It went on for 8 years
- 15 years later, the original members of the hoax have kept their silence.


Now, doesn't empirical evidence tell us that people don't usually go to this much trouble unless there's something to gain from all of it? Absent a financial or publicity motive, what would be the point of doing all this for so many years? What did Eisenbeiss, who was interested in the occult, and not a practicing anything, have to gain? What did the mysterious chess player have to gain, other than ridicule if the thing was ever exposed?

I'm not claiming a ghost played a game of chess, but I am pointing out that the natural explanation has some problems with it.

[Malerin]

Just to save a lot of time... are you intending to trawl the internet and post any bizarre story that could be either paranormal or explained away fairly simply with mundane reasons?

Fairly simply? The "mundane reasons" pose a lot of questions.


And then complain every time the mundane explanation is given citing either our "closed mindedness" or predisposition "towards materialism".
Because this could get old real quick.

I didn't complain when the explanation was GIVEN. I complained when it was written off as "easy to do" and now "fairly simple".

Nobody is forcing you to post anything. You could "save a lot of time" by not even responding.

That's why examples which minimise the possibility of mundane explanations are far more interesting - hence our preference for looking at unusual results produced in controlled settings. Testable, evidenced claims.

There may be a component to reality that is NOT testable in a controlled settings.

And, once again, not every imaginable explanation carries equal weight - maybe invisible leprechauns whispered the moves into Rollans' ears.
It's an alternate theory with just as much evidence as the talking-to-the-dead one. Why would you reject that theory?

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.

[PingOfPong]

Absent a financial or publicity motive


There must have been some publicity because you know about it. It gave Korochnoi "street cred" in the circles you move in. You keep saying that anyone involved would have their reputation destroyed if the hoax was exposed. You're overestimating the public's desire for honesty. Do you remember when Hillary Clinton lied about being shot at in Bosnia? She wasn't tarred and feathered for it.


The relevant question is not "is it clear why someone would pull off a hoax like this?".



Malerin is implying that no rational motive could possibly exist for Korochnoi's hoax. I could throw out plenty of possibilities. Maybe he thought it would intimidate his superstitious living opponents. Maybe he was bored and the whole thing amused him. Maybe he thought it would help him pick up superstitous chicks at a bar. The motive could also be inexplicable. People don't always act rationally.

[Malerin]

When there are two or more competing theories, go with the one that makes the least assumptions.

yes, but which here makes the least assumptions? The supernatual one assumes that life-after-death is possible, and some people can contact the dead. It doesn't assume any causal explanation, just that the above CAN happen.

The natural one assumes dishonety on the part of all involved (except the grandmaster), an elaborate hoax than went on for years for no particular gain, a mysterious high-level chess player willing to risk his reputation, and assumes all parties would stay silent after the fact for the last 15 years.

[Malerin]

There must have been some publicity because you know about it.

Did any of you know about it? Try to find any information about Eisenbeiss. You won't be able to, apart from this story. Do you remember ANYTHING about this story when the game started or concluded in the 80's/early 90's?

It gave Korochnoi "street cred" in the circles you move in.

Korochnoi is the patsy in all this! Are you now assuming Korochnoi is one the of conspiriators? What kind of "street cred" would beating a ghost give him in the world of high-level tournament chess? I think you got someone's name mixed up (maybe Eisenbeiss or the medium?) Do you think Karpov gave two ***** that Korochnoi was playing a game against a medium?

You keep saying that anyone involved would have their reputation destroyed if the hoax was exposed. You're overestimating the public's desire for honesty.

That goes both ways- why has no one come forward with information about the hoax after the last 15 years? If the mysterious chess player or Eisenbeiss has nothing to worry about reputation-wise, why have they stayed silent lo these many years? Why did the medium go to his death without revealing it was a hoax?

Do you remember when Hillary Clinton lied about being shot at in Bosnia? She wasn't tarred and feathered for it.

I think she took quite a bit of heat for it, actually. It fed into the whole "The Clinton's will say/do anything to win." It was in the news-cycle for at least a week (Hillary's denials, then CBS finally digging up an archive tape of the landing ceremoney sans sniper fire).





Malerin is implying that no rational motive could possibly exist for Korochnoi's hoax. I could throw out plenty of possibilities. Maybe he thought it would intimidate his superstitious living opponents. Maybe he was bored and the whole thing amused him. Maybe he thought it help him pick up superstitous chicks at a bar. The motive could also be inexplicable. People don't always act rationally.

So you really did mean Korochnoi in the beginning of your post. So now the theory is Eiesenbeiss, Korochnoi, and the medium all conspired to play a "ghost" game over 8 years, AND do extensive research, just so Korochnoi could intimidate his superstitious living opponents or impress chicks at a bar? Really now.

Sure, You could throw out plenty of possibilities. Are any of them reasonable to believe? This theory you have now is pretty ridiculous.

[Ashles]

Fairly simply? The "mundane reasons" pose a lot of questions.
A lot less than the alternatives.

I didn't complain when the explanation was GIVEN. I complained when it was written off as "easy to do" and now "fairly simple".
Relatively speaking it is. A lot of posters here have read a lot about hoaxes (particularly with a paranormal bent), and also how magicians create their illusions.

Nobody is forcing you to post anything. You could "save a lot of time" by not even responding.
I am just trying to let you know that the type of story you are posting requires more evidence and more likelihood of actually having something paranormal going on, otherwise you will receive many responses such as you have.
Attmpting to dismiss them as the result of a primarily materialistic based mind-set isn't really going to convince anyone of anything.

Like I say we have encountered many similar posters before, often with some kind of degree in philosophy.

There may be a component to reality that is NOT testable in a controlled settings.
And how is this distinguishable from such a component not existing?
What is the point of such claims?
What reason would anyone have for imagining such a component existed other than it is something that could be imagined?

There's a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence for suvrival of consciouness after death.
Anecdotal evidence is of little to no use in determining these matters. There is anecdotal evidence for fairies, bigfoo and the Loch Ness Monster.
And there are perfectly well understood explanations for experiences generated during NDEs/OBEs.

If you think there is a tremendous amount of evidence for survival of consciousness after death it seems strange one of the first examples of evidence you post is this chess example which could be so easily (relatively) hoaxed.

There's not any evidence, one way or the other, for the existence of invisible leprechuans.
Nor is there for the existence of consciousness after death.

Please quote some of what you believe to be the "tremendous amount of evidence" for the existence of consciousness after death.
It might help if you start with what you believe to be the strongest evidence.

[Malerin]

Please quote some of what you believe to be the "tremendous amount of evidence" for the existence of consciousness after death.
It might help if you start with what you believe to be the strongest evidence.

It would be more helpful if you quoted me correctly. I never said what you have in quotes.

[Ashles]

It would be more helpful if you quoted me correctly. I never said what you have in quotes.
So you are saying all evidence towards consciousness surviving after death is anecdotal?

Okay then.

[JoeEllison]

If you're already predisposed towards materialism, then you WILL roll your eyes. But if you have an open mind about life-after-death, the natural explanation will leave something to be desired, because there is a competing theory.
No, if you are predisposed towards being logical and intelligent, you'll roll your eyes. If you put stupid superstitious nonsense and willful ignorance first, as you have done, you'll be a sucker for every hoax in the world, including this one.

[Malerin]

So you are saying all evidence towards consciousness surviving after death is anecdotal?

Okay then.

It seems that way (I think some of the NDE research is hard to explain on a materialist level. It has certainly made believers out of doctors who were initially skeptical), though that's not necessarily good or bad. I bet you've never been to Bangaldesh. Yet you assume it's a real country. All you have to go by are accounts of other people (books, interviews, etc.) who claim to have been there. It's all second-hand.

Peronsally, I've had two supernatural experiences. They're real to me, but would be anecdotal to you. I've talked to probably a dozen people I know very well who admit to experiencing something supernatural. If you stop 10 people in the street you'll either get a couple stories of supernatural experiences, and stories of people they know who've had them. Are all of these people liars or dupes? Check out "The Scalpel and the Soul", written by a neurosurgeon about some strange things he has experienced and witnessed. Also, Ian Stevenson's work on past-life recollection of children is interesting. There are a couple of articles of his that made it into peer-reviwed journals: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease and Journal of Scientific Exploration

40% of American scientists beleive in a personal God they can pray to. Are nearly half of Amnerican scientists idiots or fools?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E3DE143CF93BA35755C0A9619582 60

The point is, if I told you I've been to Bangladesh, you might believe me. If I told you I'd seen a ghost once, you wouldn't believe me. Yet, your only proof that Bangladesh is real are anecdotal accounts by a large number of people who have written and talked about their experiences there (and some photographic evidence, which we all know could be doctored). Why you choose to believe one statement over another is very telling.

[Malerin]

No, if you are predisposed towards being logical and intelligent, you'll roll your eyes. If you put stupid superstitious nonsense and willful ignorance first, as you have done, you'll be a sucker for every hoax in the world, including this one.

Suckers like over half the doctor's in America?

"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8318894/

When you go for an appointment, I guess you better ask "Do you believe in the afterlife?" Chances are pretty good you're going to get a positive response. Suckers, fools and dupes, all of them! Right? ;)

[leon_heller]

The Journal of Scientific Exploration was started by the PEAR people, as they couldn't get their papers published by reputable journals. None of the articles in it appear to have been reviewed by anyone; all the ones I have seen have been published without any revisions, which is very unusual for a scientific publication.

Leon

[ihaunter]

Reading the goddess chess blog that was linked in the OP actually answers a few of the OP's questions. What was the motive for such a hoax?
A weird experiment to substantiate reincarnation was devised in 1985 by Dr. Wolfgang Eisenbeiss at the Swiss Institute of Parapsychology.
Successfully pulling off such a hoax could possible gain grants or other such benefits. The psychic obviously gains credibility as having been "scientifically" tested. It is also possible that Eisenbeiss was actually a victim in this hoax as well, and that the only true fraud was Rollins (the psychic)

Also from the blog is this comment on the "spirit's" play style
"Maroczy plays in an outmoded style that nobody uses today, but he's tough," said Korchnoi. Yet White had little hope after botching the opening. The real Maroczy faced the Winawer Variation four times, choosing 4 exd5 twice and 4 Nge2 twice instead of the uncharacteristic 4 e5. Correct was 12 Ng5! Nxe5 13 f4 Rxg5 14 fxg5 N5g6 15 h4. And 14 Ng5! was far stronger than entering an inferior and tedious endgame in this ghostly encounter.
So it would seem that white did not play like Maroczy, nor even much like a grandmaster. It would seem that we don't even require a chess expert as an accomplice. And you said:

I should note that the write of the blogspot was a 5 time US champ who thought Maroczy botched the opening. He had no comment about the middle/end game.
The author is clearly commenting on the "inferior and tedious end game."

We now have a potential hoax that requires a minimum of one person and a maximum of two to pull off, both of which would have motive. Not proof that it was faked, but shows that a hoax is nowhere near is hard to understand or pull off as you claim.

[leon_heller]

Suckers like over half the doctor's in America?

"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8318894/

When you go for an appointment, I guess you better ask "Do you believe in the afterlife?" Chances are pretty good you're going to get a positive response. Suckers, fools and dupes, all of them! Right? ;)

Of course they will say that they are believers, it's good for business.

Leon

[Civilized Worm]

yes, but which here makes the least assumptions? The supernatual one assumes that life-after-death is possible, and some people can contact the dead. It doesn't assume any causal explanation, just that the above CAN happen.

The natural one assumes dishonety on the part of all involved (except the grandmaster), an elaborate hoax than went on for years for no particular gain, a mysterious high-level chess player willing to risk his reputation, and assumes all parties would stay silent after the fact for the last 15 years.


I don't see why Eisenbeiss had to have been in on the hoax, it could just have been Rollans and the mystery chess player. No particular gain? Rollans created the impression that he could contact the dead which I would think would be very helpful to someone making their career as a medium. Why wouldn't they stay silent? What more could be gained by exposing the hoax?

Edit: I see ihaunter has beat me to it.

[JoeEllison]

Suckers like over half the doctor's in America?

"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8318894/

When you go for an appointment, I guess you better ask "Do you believe in the afterlife?" Chances are pretty good you're going to get a positive response. Suckers, fools and dupes, all of them! Right? ;)
You said it... :rolleyes:

You have committed a serious logical fallacy: appeal to authority. You are also changing the subject from the very specific fraud that YOU fell for, to a more general subject that many people believe in. If it makes you feel better about your own gullibility about this chess scam to claim that other people are just as gullible as you, that's fine... it makes you gullible AND illogical, but you have a right to it.

[Mashuna]

Peronsally, I've had two supernatural experiences. They're real to me, but would be anecdotal to you.
Well, if you're going to go around believing that sensory input is somehow a valid indicator of anything, what do you expect?


The point is, if I told you I've been to Bangladesh, you might believe me. If I told you I'd seen a ghost once, you wouldn't believe me. Yet, your only proof that Bangladesh is real are anecdotal accounts by a large number of people who have written and talked about their experiences there (and some photographic evidence, which we all know could be doctored). Why you choose to believe one statement over another is very telling.

Now, I'm not sure what you find telling about these statements. Would you assign equal probabilities as to the accuracy of the two scenarios you've described above?

[Ashles]

The point is, if I told you I've been to Bangladesh, you might believe me. If I told you I'd seen a ghost once, you wouldn't believe me. Yet, your only proof that Bangladesh is real are anecdotal accounts by a large number of people who have written and talked about their experiences there (and some photographic evidence, which we all know could be doctored). Why you choose to believe one statement over another is very telling.
How about this for a fairly crucial difference - I could go to Bangladesh.

I could choose to disbelieve you, but you would be able to describe very real actions I could take to experience the same thing as you.

It is a testable claim.

(Also there is the matter that a country existing does not run counter to known physical laws, or commonly accepted experience. I live in a country - why would it seem unlikely that another country existed?)

[Ashles]

When you go for an appointment, I guess you better ask "Do you believe in the afterlife?" Chances are pretty good you're going to get a positive response. Suckers, fools and dupes, all of them! Right? ;)
Who said it was simply to do with gullibility or stupidity (although I have read of correlation between religious belief and gullibility rating).

I find it far more likely that there is common psychology that predisposes people to accept the concept of a God as a way of coping with mortality/loss issues.

[Rocko]

Now, doesn't empirical evidence tell us that people don't usually go to this much trouble unless there's something to gain from all of it?

Nope. Plenty of hoaxes are done simply for the love of playing a trick. Crop circles would be an obvious example.

[PingOfPong]

Did any of you know about it?


I don't think I'm part of the intended audience.


Korochnoi is the patsy in all this! Are you now assuming Korochnoi is one the of conspiriators?


A hoax would definitely require that Rollans is a conspirator. Korochnoi and Eisenbeiss may or may not be part of it. I'll try to post after my morning coffee from now on.


What kind of "street cred" would beating a ghost give him in the world of high-level tournament chess?


No, I said "street cred" in your circles. Your kind of people who believe in mediums, spirits, etc.

That goes both ways- why has no one come forward with information about the hoax after the last 15 years? If the mysterious chess player or Eisenbeiss has nothing to worry about reputation-wise, why have they stayed silent lo these many years? Why did the medium go to his death without revealing it was a hoax?


Because he/she didn't feel the need to come forward. Hey, maybe it wasn't even as important to him/her as it is to you.

I think she took quite a bit of heat for it, actually. It fed into the whole "The Clinton's will say/do anything to win." It was in the news-cycle for at least a week (Hillary's denials, then CBS finally digging up an archive tape of the landing ceremoney sans sniper fire).


Exactly, the buzz died down in a week. She's still the senator of New York and a serious contender in all national U.S. politics.


So you really did mean Korochnoi in the beginning of your post. So now the theory is Eiesenbeiss, Korochnoi, and the medium all conspired to play a "ghost" game over 8 years, AND do extensive research, just so Korochnoi could intimidate his superstitious living opponents or impress chicks at a bar? Really now.


I've seen people "spooked" by mention of the supernatural. It really has a profound effect on some. The bar theory was just supposed to be silly.

Sure, You could throw out plenty of possibilities. Are any of them reasonable to believe?


Yes absolutely. In any case, the rationale doesn't have to be reasonable to you or me.

Let's take Korochnoi out of the picture. The medium certainly has an incentive to fool Korochnoi. It would lend credence to his medium prowess.

[Ashles]

Also, are we expected to draw from this that the dead can communicate an entire chess game, yet whenever contacted seem to manage nothing more than "The letter D or B, and an uncle?"

They can't help us solve murders or other crimes, restore lost knowledge, solve current problems, locate lost items or loations, find lost children...
But they can play chess for 8 years.

[Pup]

Also, are we expected to draw from this that the dead can communicate an entire chess game, yet whenever contacted seem to manage nothing more than "The letter D or B, and an uncle?"

But that's what they're so good at. "I'm seeing a P. And a Q. And a 4. Does that mean anything to you as a chess player?" :)

I find it far more likely that there is common psychology that predisposes people to accept the concept of a God as a way of coping with mortality/loss issues.

And for everyone involved who wasn't in on the deception, the chess game would tap into that same common psychology, if one could use the experience to "prove" to oneself that consciousness continued after death. There's motivation right there.

[quarky]

I must object to the idea that it would be a lot of trouble to go to all this effort. It wouldn't be difficult, nor require much effort. The game took years; there's plenty of time; not much effort, really. (much as i like the notion of good, dead chess players...beats harp players)

[JoeEllison]

I must object to the idea that it would be a lot of trouble to go to all this effort. It wouldn't be difficult, nor require much effort. The game took years; there's plenty of time; not much effort, really. (much as i like the notion of good, dead chess players...beats harp players)

Right on... the amount of effort to produce one good chess move every two months or so? Teeny-tiny. I could produce that kind of fraud right now, out of boredom, and would take less than a few hours. If you spread that few hours over EIGHT YEARS it is no big deal at all.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

If this needed someone with Grandmaster level chess skills, it would still be possible to involve them without them even knowing the nature of the match they were playing in. Some posters have already touched on the possibility of just asking people for help on the next best move and there's no reason the person / people asked would need to be in on the scam and no reason why it couldn't be another Grandmaster (or several) who was asked but kept ignorant of who was supposedly playing who.

Also, I may be mis-remembering but wasn't Korchnoi a bit of a nutter who believed in all sorts of woo things (didn't he want to avoid being in the same room as one opponent because of some 'death gaze' idea or something). If he thought he was playing an old master he may have read far more significance into the moves than was actually in the head of the person(s) making them ie he was effectively playing himself.

In any case, the length of time between moves would appear far too great for a coherent game so Korchnoi probably looked at the game board afresh each time. Hardly conducive to a good performance.

[Nursefoxfire]

Did anyone else get that

Fifteen men on a dead man's chess
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum

ditty running through their head at this thread title? :p

[Civilized Worm]

Also, I may be mis-remembering but wasn't Korchnoi a bit of a nutter who believed in all sorts of woo things (didn't he want to avoid being in the same room as one opponent because of some 'death gaze' idea or something). If he thought he was playing an old master he may have read far more significance into the moves than was actually in the head of the person(s) making them ie he was effectively playing himself.


Dr. Zukhar, a parapsychologist and member of Karpov's delegation, was accused of sitting in the audience and interfering with Korchnoi's concentration. When Korchnoi was unable to have him removed, he engaged the Ananda Marga, a religious sect, to counterbalance the 'bad vibrations'.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Zukhar_Vladimir_369259884.aspx


Yes Korchnoi was definitely woo woo himself, it doesn't suprise me at all that he thought he was playing a ghost.

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting, no? No .

I can't remember having seen a more asinine argument for communicating with the dead ..

Why do dead people seem to be restricted to totally useless and benign information, rather than where uncle Harry stashed the gold coins, or who murdered aunt Rebbecca ?

[Jimbo07]

Right on... the amount of effort to produce one good chess move every two months or so? Teeny-tiny. I could produce that kind of fraud right now, out of boredom, and would take less than a few hours. If you spread that few hours over EIGHT YEARS it is no big deal at all.

It all has to do with speed and access to information. It's possible to win a single game over 8* years, especially given access to books, early programs, etc.

The difference between any one of us with 8 years, books, computers and so on and a grandmaster is that the grandmaster wins tournaments consistently. So it is in every sport/contest.

...

* Of course, this (8 yr figure, etc.) assumes that at least the skeleton of the story is even true. ;)

[Senex]

So can we have one woo channel Paul Morphy and another woo channel Bobby Fischer and put to rest who is the greatest chess player of all time -- or would these two rascals be put off because they are playing each other every day already on the other side (I'm sure Bobby Fischer is dodging Morphy even though he could kick his butt. It wouldn't be heaven for Fischer if he couldn't dodge opposition).

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>

The point is, if I told you I've been to Bangladesh, you might believe me. If I told you I'd seen a ghost once, you wouldn't believe me. Yet, your only proof that Bangladesh is real are anecdotal accounts by a large number of people who have written and talked about their experiences there (and some photographic evidence, which we all know could be doctored). Why you choose to believe one statement over another is very telling.


Do you get out much? I've been to Bangladesh four times. How does that weigh up against your "anecdotal accounts by a large number of people... etc...." "... doctored evidence"....? I have their visa still in my last passport, and I'm pretty sure it came from a real Bangladeshi guy and a real Bangladesh consulate. I could go check for you.

Yet, I've never seen a ghost, nor anyone who could talk to dead people.

In short... What A Dumb Rhetorical Point.

Does Sudan Exist vs Are There Faeries In The Garden ???? Gee, I don't know, there seems to be equal evidence for both sides.

Really?????



Kudos to Civilized Worm and Ethan Thane Allen..... I hadn't seen this thread and didn't think it would get beyond the third post before someone pointed out that Viktor was batcrap crazy. (Many chess players seem to be.) I mean he hired someone to throw a protective energy field around him because he felt his opponent's personal svengali was hexing him with the evil eye. He was also notoriously superstitious.

In fact, there are lots of stories out there, one of them being that the Swiss guy, Doctor Woo, asked Korchnoi who he'd like to play most, and that he named Capablanca and two others(including Maroczy). Now I posit that Capablanca (or Alekhine or Morphy) would have been far too familiar to the chess public, as every single game they every played is on record. But Maroczy was never even No. 1 in the world, much less a perennial world beater. Why was he even included? Perhaps because someone had interesting and obscure information on him? Perhaps because of just that - he was a lesser light and thus less known, so they could make up crap.

So you now have:

> Three (not one) woos.. Eisenbeiss, Rollan, and Korchnoi.
> The game itself? No where near in the the style of the deceased Grandmaster.
> The other credibility? Well, Eisenbeiss claimed he knew Rollan to be trustworthy. YOU MEAN OTHER THAN WHEN HE TALKED TO DEAD PEOPLE, RIGHT?
> Oh but it wasn't the game, it was the details of his personal life. No it wasn't! It was the details of his public life, but lesser known public life, unless of course, YOU ARE VIKTOR KORCHNOI who knew the entire chess world and chess players and fans know one group of people... other players and fans.
> But it took X dozens of hours to look up all that stuff! Yeah? And that and two bucks will get you on the IRT. I could give you details of certain very public parts of my life, right now, and even with the internet, you would need 84 hours to verify them, if not more. And they had EIGHT YEARS. Plus, they had Crazy Vic Korchnoi, who, no doubt, had known many people who knew Maroczy, personally.

There is just so much here that stinks of woo that I can't believe you're taking it seriously. You suffer one of the most awesome cases of confirmation bias I've ever seen.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Couldn't just a grandmaster/talented amateur with old fashioned style have unwittingly provided the counter moves?

Good chess players are often engaged in similar games - if the game is played at distance, all you would have to do would be to engage one good player in a 'regular' correspondence game and claim to the other one that he is playing someone channeling an old grand master. Then you have them play each other by simply forwarding their moves to the other one and wait for the outcame. The "other side" grand master forgets all about it because he is constantly engaged in similar games, and who remembers them all? The other one on the other hand remembers it as "the medium that nearly beat me".

Surely, that is the most plausible explanation?

[Rocko]

Couldn't just a grandmaster/talented amateur with old fashioned style have unwittingly provided the counter moves?

That was my first thought, I have to say. The old con job of playing two good players off against each other would be the easiest way of doing this.

[Jimbo07]

Do you get out much? I've been to Bangladesh four times. How does that weigh up against your "anecdotal accounts by a large number of people... etc...." "... doctored evidence"....? I have their visa still in my last passport, and I'm pretty sure it came from a real Bangladeshi guy and a real Bangladesh consulate. I could go check for you.

Malerin doesn't think physical evidence amounts to much, because we can only know that thought exists. From that perspective, your example fails. :(

From any reasonable perspective, on the other hand, you shouldn't have had to make your point in the first place... :rolleyes:

[YeahDude]

HAHA! I will get in touch with the ghost of Bobby Fisher and you can have a match with him. I will send his moves to you, for a nominal fee of course.

[Brian-M]

Why would they fake it? Why would people make crop-circles, fake photos of UFOs and fairys in the back yard, or alien autopsy films? Who needs a reason?

If you wanted to prove contact with the dead, you'd use a password like Houdini did, not a chess game.

If the medium spent the months between moves looking for similar games in chess books, that would explain the archaic playing style.

And why would anyone come out and say "it was all a hoax" without a good reason for destroying their own reputation?

"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

So that means nearly 13% of doctors who believe in god don't believe in an afterlife? Why would you bother to believe in god if you don't believe in an afterlife? It seems odd to me.

(76%-59%=17% ... 17% of 79% = 12.92%)

[Mark Felt]

So that means nearly 13% of doctors who believe in god don't believe in an afterlife? Why would you bother to believe in god if you don't believe in an afterlife? It seems odd to me.

(76%-59%=17% ... 17% of 79% = 12.92%)

To retain business.

[Malerin]

Couldn't just a grandmaster/talented amateur with old fashioned style have unwittingly provided the counter moves?

1. You'd have to have access to such a person. A grandmaster is so far above a "talented amateur", it's not even funny. You would also have to persusade them to play a mail-game for an extended length of time.

Good chess players are often engaged in similar games - if the game is played at distance, all you would have to do would be to engage one good player in a 'regular' correspondence game and claim to the other one that he is playing someone channeling an old grand master.

More than a "good player". Someone who could convince both a Grandmaster and indepdent chess commentator their play is old-fashioned, AND make the 3rd ranked player in the world doubt he would win at some point.

Again, back to the original point: Eidenbeiss or the medium had a "pocket" grandmaster/near grandmaster willing to play a mail-game for 8 years. They would also have had to persuade this player to appear to play old-fashioned.

Then you have them play each other by simply forwarding their moves to the other one and wait for the outcame. The "other side" grand master forgets all about it because he is constantly engaged in similar games, and who remembers them all? The other one on the other hand remembers it as "the medium that nearly beat me".

He's going to forget about a correspondance game he's been playing for 8 years? A game where he was only a pawn down and had a chance of winning against the 3rd ranked player in the world? Not likely.

Surely, that is the most plausible explanation?

It's AN explanation. It doens't seem very plausible. "Plausibility" is such a loaded term though. Your view of reality is going to influence it tremendously. If you believe reality exists of just physical things, the supernatural explanation won't seem plausible. If you think the supernatural exists and, for whatever reason, is hard to test and quantify, then the supernatural reason may seem more plausible.

[Malerin]

If this needed someone with Grandmaster level chess skills, it would still be possible to involve them without them even knowing the nature of the match they were playing in. Some posters have already touched on the possibility of just asking people for help on the next best move and there's no reason the person / people asked would need to be in on the scam and no reason why it couldn't be another Grandmaster (or several) who was asked but kept ignorant of who was supposedly playing who.

You would need access to either one very good chess player for the entire 8 years, or numerous very good players over the span of 8 years. Also, these player(s) would have to play in a way that would convince two independent chess experts (commentator, grandmaster), that the style of play appeard old-fashioned.

It COULD be done, but again, to what end? Once you eliminate any monetary motive, you're left with either publicity or the thrill of the hoax. Some have mentioned crop-circles and fairy pictures. For a supposed group of skeptics, you guys conveniently ignored key differences between the cases:

Both crop circles and fairy pictures were widely publicized and PROVEN to be hoaxes by admission of the perpetrators themselves. This story didn't register as so much as a blip on the regular media, both WHEN the hoax started AND when it concluded. The publicity value was essentially nill. One of the "hoax" masters went to his death not reaveaing the "truth". The others have kept quiet still, even after 15 years. If they set out to "fool" the world, it would have become painfully obvious early on that the world could care less about the game. Also, there were many crop circles and fairy photographs done. There's been ONE game of chess between a grandmaster and a "ghost". Why stop with Korchnoi? Why not grab another medium, the same chess "adviser" and challenge another grandmaster? Unlike crop circles and fairy pictures, the "hoax" was never attemtped again. Why not? Is there a shortage of unscrupulous mediums out there? :rolleyes:

Also, I may be mis-remembering but wasn't Korchnoi a bit of a nutter who believed in all sorts of woo things (didn't he want to avoid being in the same room as one opponent because of some 'death gaze' idea or something). If he thought he was playing an old master he may have read far more significance into the moves than was actually in the head of the person(s) making them ie he was effectively playing himself.

Stonewall Jackson and Patton were also "nutters", but they were also brillaint military commanders. Why would Korchnoi's belief he was playing an old grandmaster limit his play in any way?

In any case, the length of time between moves would appear far too great for a coherent game so Korchnoi probably looked at the game board afresh each time. Hardly conducive to a good performance.

You can't have it both ways: Korchnoi's opponent would have had the same difficulty. If it even is a difficulty- having NO time constraints in a game may just as easily allow a player to play all the better. I've played in a few tournaments, and often, in the back of your mind, is the fear that you're wasting too much time on a move. One of the reasons classic openings are memorized is to move quickly in the beginning and save clock time for later on in the game. I'm of the opposite opinion as you: the freedom to analyze the game, at your leisure, would result in better moves.

[Malerin]

To retain business.

Why would taking part in an anonymous poll have any bearing on your business?

[Malerin]

The Journal of Scientific Exploration was started by the PEAR people, as they couldn't get their papers published by reputable journals. None of the articles in it appear to have been reviewed by anyone; all the ones I have seen have been published without any revisions, which is very unusual for a scientific publication.

Leon

Here are the leaders of the organization:
Leaders Emeritus
Professor Peter A. Sturrock
Department of Physics & Department of Applied Physics
Stanford University

Professor Larry Frederick
Department of Astronomy
University of Virginia

Professor Charlie Tolbert
Department of Astronomy
University of Virginia

Seem like a scientific bunch.

Anyway, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (which also published Stevenson's work) seems to be a reputable journal:

http://www.jonmd.com/pt/re/jnmd/currenttoc.htm;jsessionid=LvNB3JgLnTGy8ngQ1dnzbGQq CMnQnt1ryg2x3GyJp3hyyW6R2T1v!-1123973585!181195628!8091!-1

All articles published by multiple PhD's, MD's.

"But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001393.html

"In 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Dr. Stevenson's work."

[Ersby]

I think this post bears repeating.

Reading the goddess chess blog that was linked in the OP actually answers a few of the OP's questions. What was the motive for such a hoax?

A weird experiment to substantiate reincarnation was devised in 1985 by Dr. Wolfgang Eisenbeiss at the Swiss Institute of Parapsychology.

Successfully pulling off such a hoax could possible gain grants or other such benefits. The psychic obviously gains credibility as having been "scientifically" tested. It is also possible that Eisenbeiss was actually a victim in this hoax as well, and that the only true fraud was Rollins (the psychic)

Also from the blog is this comment on the "spirit's" play style

"Maroczy plays in an outmoded style that nobody uses today, but he's tough," said Korchnoi. Yet White had little hope after botching the opening. The real Maroczy faced the Winawer Variation four times, choosing 4 exd5 twice and 4 Nge2 twice instead of the uncharacteristic 4 e5. Correct was 12 Ng5! Nxe5 13 f4 Rxg5 14 fxg5 N5g6 15 h4. And 14 Ng5! was far stronger than entering an inferior and tedious endgame in this ghostly encounter.

So it would seem that white did not play like Maroczy, nor even much like a grandmaster. It would seem that we don't even require a chess expert as an accomplice. And you said:

I should note that the write of the blogspot was a 5 time US champ who thought Maroczy botched the opening. He had no comment about the middle/end game.

The author is clearly commenting on the "inferior and tedious end game."

We now have a potential hoax that requires a minimum of one person and a maximum of two to pull off, both of which would have motive. Not proof that it was faked, but shows that a hoax is nowhere near is hard to understand or pull off as you claim.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

You would need access to either one very good chess player for the entire 8 years, or numerous very good players over the span of 8 years. Also, these player(s) would have to play in a way that would convince two independent chess experts (commentator, grandmaster), that the style of play appeard old-fashioned.

Korchnoi was very capable of fooling himself. If he thought he was playing a ghost he'd expect the play to be old-fashioned. Another possibility is that whoever was playing him was using openings etc from previous Maroczy games therefore of course they'd seem old fashioned.

It COULD be done, but again, to what end? Once you eliminate any monetary motive, you're left with either publicity or the thrill of the hoax. Some have mentioned crop-circles and fairy pictures. For a supposed group of skeptics, you guys conveniently ignored key differences between the cases:

Both crop circles and fairy pictures were widely publicized and PROVEN to be hoaxes by admission of the perpetrators themselves. This story didn't register as so much as a blip on the regular media, both WHEN the hoax started AND when it concluded. The publicity value was essentially nill. One of the "hoax" masters went to his death not reaveaing the "truth". The others have kept quiet still, even after 15 years. If they set out to "fool" the world, it would have become painfully obvious early on that the world could care less about the game. Also, there were many crop circles and fairy photographs done. There's been ONE game of chess between a grandmaster and a "ghost". Why stop with Korchnoi? Why not grab another medium, the same chess "adviser" and challenge another grandmaster? Unlike crop circles and fairy pictures, the "hoax" was never attemtped again. Why not? Is there a shortage of unscrupulous mediums out there? :rolleyes:

Why not? Well you give one possible answer to your own question: 'painfully obvious early on that the world could care less about the game'. Ie there was little to be gained by it. Also if it took 8 years that would seem a hell of a lot of effort so I can quite understand why they didn't do it again.



Stonewall Jackson and Patton were also "nutters", but they were also brillaint military commanders. Why would Korchnoi's belief he was playing an old grandmaster limit his play in any way?

I was a very average chess player but often beat superior players by a combination of confidence and aggressive style. They'd fool themselves into thinking there was more behind my moves than there was and waste time countering a perceived threat that I wasn't even aware of. Psychology plays a large part in chess - especially at this level. You don't just analyse your own moves ahead but your opponents and if you think your opponent is a good player, you'll work out good moves for him from the current position.



You can't have it both ways: Korchnoi's opponent would have had the same difficulty. If it even is a difficulty- having NO time constraints in a game may just as easily allow a player to play all the better. I've played in a few tournaments, and often, in the back of your mind, is the fear that you're wasting too much time on a move. One of the reasons classic openings are memorized is to move quickly in the beginning and save clock time for later on in the game. I'm of the opposite opinion as you: the freedom to analyze the game, at your leisure, would result in better moves.

You're assuming Korchnoi spent all his time between moves thinking about that game. I'd suggest that someone with Korchnoi's profile would be busy with other things (and indeed other games) whereas his opponent may have had considerably more time to spare on this as it would probably be the only game he was playing.

[Malerin]

I think this post bears repeating.

That's an interesting analysis by an admittedly biased observer:
"This great hokum was reported in The National Enquirer decades ago and was revived last year in a lead article for the British journal of Psychical Research"

Vernon Neppe and Helmut Metz make different claims. Neppe is obviously predisposed toward the paranormal (but also an outstanding scientist (http://www.parapsych.org/members/v_neppe.html). I don't read German (or whatever language Metz wrote in), so I can't evaluate where he's coming from. It seems that the person's view of reality colors their perception of the game.

This goes towards what I was saying before: the game garnered so little publicity, analysis of the game itself is hard to find.

[Malerin]

Korchnoi was very capable of fooling himself. If he thought he was playing a ghost he'd expect the play to be old-fashioned. Another possibility is that whoever was playing him was using openings etc from previous Maroczy games therefore of course they'd seem old fashioned.

Yes, Korchnoi may have been predisposed towards the idea of the supernatural. However, that does not make him a sap. He was ranked 3rd in the world. Just because he believed he might be playing Maroczy does not mean his powers of analysis went out the window. Korchnoi could just as likely believed Maroczy had been paying attention to chess in all the years since his death. We would have to personally ask Korchnoi what he thought. Absent that, all we have are his own words and conjecture about his state of mind.



Why not? Well you give one possible answer to your own question: 'painfully obvious early on that the world could care less about the game'. Ie there was little to be gained by it.

Then why spend 8 years playing the game at all? If there was nothing to be gained by it, publicity-wise, why waste 8 years playing a meaningless game?

Also if it took 8 years that would seem a hell of a lot of effort so I can quite understand why they didn't do it again.

It was a hell of a lot of effort for no monetary or publicity gain, which would have become obvious very early on in the game. Not only would they not have done another game, they wouldn't have finished the first one! How hard would it have been for the medium to have "lost contact" with Maroczy? They ceraintly wouldn't have done all the research that required travel to Hungary and interviews with Maroczy's family.



I was a very average chess player but often beat superior players by a combination of confidence and aggressive style. They'd fool themselves into thinking there was more behind my moves than there was and waste time countering a perceived threat that I wasn't even aware of. Psychology plays a large part in chess - especially at this level. You don't just analyse your own moves ahead but your opponents and if you think your opponent is a good player, you'll work out good moves for him from the current position.

Hmmm, just a wild guess, but you're experience playing Grandmasters is probably nil (doubly so your experience of playing one of the top ranked players in the world, but this is the internet, so feel free to claim otherwise). Also, a game by mail is rather dry and abstract. Not as suscetipble to the kind of psychological tricks you could employ.

This is just a supposition on my part, but I'm pretty sure that even if you played "confidently and aggressively" against the 3rd best player in the world, you'd have your ass handed to you in short order.

You're assuming Korchnoi spent all his time between moves thinking about that game.

46 moves over 8 years? One move every ten weeks? Yeah, it's likely he spent some time thinking about the game. I would guess about as much time as the mysterious gifted chess player the medium and Eisenbeiss were in contact with. Oh wait! I forgot. Eisenbeiss had access to a high-ranking chess player who had absolutely nothing better to do than spend the entire day studying the game!

I'd suggest that someone with Korchnoi's profile would be busy with other things (and indeed other games) whereas his opponent may have had considerably more time to spare on this as it would probably be the only game he was playing.

If Korchnoi's opponent could make Korchnoi, 3rd ranked player in the world, doubt the outcome of the game, Korchnoi's opponent would ALSE be busy with "other things (and indeed other games)". Ah, but I keep forgetting- Korchnoi's opponent was a skilled enough player to nearly beat a Grandmaster, but had nothing better to do than analyse a game because a medium asked him to. That's VERY reasonable :rolleyes:

Oh, and to top it all off, AFTER it became clear the game was getting no publicity and no money was at stake, they spent 70+ hours of research on Maroczy's life, travelled to Hungary, interviewed Maroczy's family, and studied old chess programs. That's also very reasonable. :)

[Foolmewunz]

Malerin,

Do you play chess? I believe not or you would not be ignoring comments by a couple of chess players here.

There's speed chess, tournament chess, multi-player exhibition/speed chess, and casual chess. (And forty or fifty other variations.) The clincher in many of them is RUNNING OUT OF TIME. Given enough time, e.g. weeks between moves, a talented club level player can play a very good game. A Master or GrandMaster can do even better and you'd be surprised how many of those are out there. Fisher once said he and other IGMs usually worked 10/15 moves in advance. Not that it played out that way, but they envisioned all the logical reactions to logical moves and played them out in their miinds while waiting for their own move, or waiting for their opponent.

Conversely, when the best in the world play rooms full of people they often come away with, say, 11 wins, 7 draws, and 2 losses. The problem is RUNNING OUT OF TIME. 2 losses! To local club level players. Morphy would beat a room full of master level players and loose to the local librarian. (I made that up... just a euphemism for an "average/unknown".)

So it applies on both sides of the game. Winning or losing. I can play a pretty fair game of chess, but Korchnoi's third cousin four times removed could beat me in regulation time. But given a week between moves, access to books and friends for advice (and even a primitive 80s chess computer), and I'm pretty sure I could play him to a draw. And I was never ranked. (Never played enough tournaments when I was serious about the game.)


So, please stop talking about the credits of the person who was playing him. From everything I've read, Maroczy couldn't have played Korchnoi to a draw, anyway. He was a very defensive player, but lacked in imagination what he had in conservative skills. The 1910/20 game's 3rd or 10th best player (he was only tops really early on when no one had seen his style... my theory is that he bored opponents into blundering) would probably not be up to Korchnoi's level. Viktor gave Karpov a pretty good game, IIRC.

[Mark Felt]

Why would taking part in an anonymous poll have any bearing on your business?

Who says that it's anonymous? The guys running the poll? If you're the kind of tricky bastard that would lie about religion in order to drum up business, wouldn't you suspect the guys doing to poll to be lying about the anonymity of the poll and act accordingly?

Then why spend 8 years playing the game at all? If there was nothing to be gained by it, publicity-wise, why waste 8 years playing a meaningless game?

You're the one that keeps saying that the apparent lack of material gain is evidence that something else was at work here. I say it's just evidence that the motive wasn't publicity. Best guess? Someone who knew about Korchnoi's wooish beliefs wanted to screw with his head and paid the medium to perpetrate the fraud. One move every ten weeks? Hell, you don't even need the medium to do any research, provide the moves yourself.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Yes, Korchnoi may have been predisposed towards the idea of the supernatural. However, that does not make him a sap. He was ranked 3rd in the world. Just because he believed he might be playing Maroczy does not mean his powers of analysis went out the window. Korchnoi could just as likely believed Maroczy had been paying attention to chess in all the years since his death. We would have to personally ask Korchnoi what he thought. Absent that, all we have are his own words and conjecture about his state of mind.





Then why spend 8 years playing the game at all? If there was nothing to be gained by it, publicity-wise, why waste 8 years playing a meaningless game?



It was a hell of a lot of effort for no monetary or publicity gain, which would have become obvious very early on in the game. Not only would they not have done another game, they wouldn't have finished the first one! How hard would it have been for the medium to have "lost contact" with Maroczy? They ceraintly wouldn't have done all the research that required travel to Hungary and interviews with Maroczy's family.





Hmmm, just a wild guess, but you're experience playing Grandmasters is probably nil (doubly so your experience of playing one of the top ranked players in the world, but this is the internet, so feel free to claim otherwise). Also, a game by mail is rather dry and abstract. Not as suscetipble to the kind of psychological tricks you could employ.

This is just a supposition on my part, but I'm pretty sure that even if you played "confidently and aggressively" against the 3rd best player in the world, you'd have your ass handed to you in short order.



46 moves over 8 years? One move every ten weeks? Yeah, it's likely he spent some time thinking about the game. I would guess about as much time as the mysterious gifted chess player the medium and Eisenbeiss were in contact with. Oh wait! I forgot. Eisenbeiss had access to a high-ranking chess player who had absolutely nothing better to do than spend the entire day studying the game!



If Korchnoi's opponent could make Korchnoi, 3rd ranked player in the world, doubt the outcome of the game, Korchnoi's opponent would ALSE be busy with "other things (and indeed other games)". Ah, but I keep forgetting- Korchnoi's opponent was a skilled enough player to nearly beat a Grandmaster, but had nothing better to do than analyse a game because a medium asked him to. That's VERY reasonable :rolleyes:

Oh, and to top it all off, AFTER it became clear the game was getting no publicity and no money was at stake, they spent 70+ hours of research on Maroczy's life, travelled to Hungary, interviewed Maroczy's family, and studied old chess programs. That's also very reasonable. :)

You're missing my point. Korchnoi nearly beat himself, was my point.

As for your other points, I admitted in my post that I was an average player and of course I haven't played any Grand Masters. My point still stands - if someone believes they are playing someone good then they will read that into the game...at least in the early stages. As for postal games, in my (limited) experience, people do not spend much of the intervening time thinking about the game or their next move.

I am not asseting any of my 'theories' as proof, nor that all hang together as one coherent whole, more that there are a number of possible (and real world) explanations for each of the 'proofs' you assert.

[Basilio]

If ya just look at how much time each move took, 8 years and gave up on 48th move, so about 2 months a play, you could set up a board and run your move and possible counter moves, with a handy reference book. In an hour you could run counter moves up to maybe 2 plays ahead, write them down, and compare to older player's style. All low tech. As others have said, time was on the medium's side, cuz in real one on one, the clock and your nerves are against you. Most simple (and so, most possible) answer is that no woo is involved. Check and mate.

[Civilized Worm]

Peronsally, I've had two supernatural experiences. They're real to me, but would be anecdotal to you.


Just out of interest, what were these experiences?

[drkitten]

So that means nearly 13% of doctors who believe in god don't believe in an afterlife? Why would you bother to believe in god if you don't believe in an afterlife? It seems odd to me.

(76%-59%=17% ... 17% of 79% = 12.92%)

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).

[Cuddles]

There was a thread discussing this a while ago. I really love the way that someone taking 8 years to lose a game of chess is somehow supposed to be proof of the afterlife.

[Pup]

Also, there were many crop circles and fairy photographs done. There's been ONE game of chess between a grandmaster and a "ghost". Why stop with Korchnoi? Why not grab another medium, the same chess "adviser" and challenge another grandmaster? Unlike crop circles and fairy pictures, the "hoax" was never attemtped again. Why not? Is there a shortage of unscrupulous mediums out there? :rolleyes:

I'd say that's a better argument for a non-paranormal explanation. If talented dead people can be channeled, where are the new books by Shakespeare? The new compositions by Beethoven? Why not more chess games by other dead masters? If talent doesn't die with an individual, and all you need is a medium to communicate it, why don't we see a broader mix of talent from a single medium who can channel a composer one day and a physicist the next?

[Jimbo07]

It all has to do with speed and access to information. It's possible to win a single game over 8* years, especially given access to books, early programs, etc.

The difference between any one of us with 8 years, books, computers and so on and a grandmaster is that the grandmaster wins tournaments consistently. So it is in every sport/contest.


Given enough time, e.g. weeks between moves, a talented club level player can play a very good game. A Master or GrandMaster can do even better and you'd be surprised how many of those are out there... But given a week between moves, access to books and friends for advice (and even a primitive 80s chess computer),

Thanks for reiterating my point (almost in its entirety, including the primitive computer :rolleyes:). Maybe Malerin will address it this time?

[Ersby]

There's been ONE game of chess between a grandmaster and a "ghost". Why stop with Korchnoi? Why not grab another medium, the same chess "adviser" and challenge another grandmaster? Unlike crop circles and fairy pictures, the "hoax" was never attemtped again. Why not? Is there a shortage of unscrupulous mediums out there? :rolleyes:

There is quite a shortage of Grandmasters, though.

This isn't the only tale I've heard of a ghost playing chess, nor would it be the only occasion where a seemingly impossibly brilliant chess player turned out to be a hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk

[Malerin]

So it applies on both sides of the game. Winning or losing. I can play a pretty fair game of chess, but Korchnoi's third cousin four times removed could beat me in regulation time. But given a week between moves, access to books and friends for advice (and even a primitive 80s chess computer), and I'm pretty sure I could play him to a draw. And I was never ranked. (Never played enough tournaments when I was serious about the game.)

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!

[ihaunter]

That's an interesting analysis by an admittedly biased observer:
"This great hokum was reported in The National Enquirer decades ago and was revived last year in a lead article for the British journal of Psychical Research"
An observer that YOU brought to the discussion as a relevant expert. You were bragging about his credentials when you were misrepresenting his opinion of the game.

Vernon Neppe and Helmut Metz make different claims. Neppe is obviously predisposed toward the paranormal (but also an outstanding scientist (http://www.parapsych.org/members/v_neppe.html). I don't read German (or whatever language Metz wrote in), so I can't evaluate where he's coming from. It seems that the person's view of reality colors their perception of the game.

This goes towards what I was saying before: the game garnered so little publicity, analysis of the game itself is hard to find.

bolding mine
Yet you seem to think that Korchnoi was immune to this. Why? Because he was a Grandmaster at chess? Or, because it supports your personal view of reality?

[Jimbo07]

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!

No. Now you're being (deliberately?) dense. Grandmasters, like Olympic athletes, are amazing, and arguably push the boundaries of human capability (unless, of course, you believe that only thought exists and therefore, anything goes :rolleyes:). The thing that separates a champion from some schmuck who got lucky is the ability to win consistently, and perhaps as importantly, under pressure. Remove either of those constraints, and knowing who is the Grandmaster merely provides a way to bet.

Heck, I may not even be able to beat a disabled octagenarian chess grandmaster in a fistfight, but that doesn't mean that under the right circumstances they can never be beaten! Foolmewunz used the language of humility, and was merely explaining a background that provided some familiarity with chess. Regardless, there are many clever people who don't routinely play chess, to borrow one population. Sometimes hoaxers are quite clever themselves.

[Malerin]

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. But you guys just throw that out there like it happens all the time. "Sure, give me enough time and I'll play anyone in the world to a draw! I'll also paint a masterpiece, write a bestselling novel and compose a piece of timeless music. All's I need is some time!"

The fanaticism here is almost Christianesque.

[Ashles]

I'd say that's a better argument for a non-paranormal explanation. If talented dead people can be channeled, where are the new books by Shakespeare? The new compositions by Beethoven? Why not more chess games by other dead masters? If talent doesn't die with an individual, and all you need is a medium to communicate it, why don't we see a broader mix of talent from a single medium who can channel a composer one day and a physicist the next?
Now that would be something - some new branch of physics or some new theory generated by a medium who had no background in the subject.

Strange how that never happens.

[Hellbound]

Now that would be something - some new branch of physics or some new theory generated by a medium who had no background in the subject.

Strange how that never happens.

Yeah, the "simple" proof of Fermat's Last Theorem from someone without a mathematics background would go a long way :)

[Ashles]

Yeah, the "simple" proof of Fermat's Last Theorem from someone without a mathematics background would go a long way :)
Well if the implication is that the dead can continue to process information, analyse problems and communicate with us, what might we look forward to from Einstein, Heisenberg, Newton, Schrodinger, Bohr...

And I wouldn't mind Douglas Adams finishing the next Dirk Gently book while we're at it.

[Civilized Worm]

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. But you guys just throw that out there like it happens all the time. "Sure, give me enough time and I'll play anyone in the world to a draw! I'll also paint a masterpiece, write a bestselling novel and compose a piece of timeless music. All's I need is some time!"

The fanaticism here is almost Christianesque.


But he didn't win.

What were your "supernatural" experiences?

[Ashles]

Yes, Korchnoi may have been predisposed towards the idea of the supernatural. However, that does not make him a sap. He was ranked 3rd in the world. Just because he believed he might be playing Maroczy does not mean his powers of analysis went out the window.
Why does it not mean that?
We know that is often exactly the case.

See Confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

Many very intelligent and talented people have been fooled by their desire to believe something.

Look at Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and The Cottingley Fairies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies) for example.

[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 (http://www.calnative.com/stories/n_leprechaun.htm)]

[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 ?:rolleyes:

I think you missed a turn somewhere...

[Mark Felt]

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.

Your analogy is crap. Among other things, painting isn't chess. Let's boil it down.

If you had two months between finalising your brushstrokes, and the ability to visualise seven or eight brushstrokes past that, which is where the chessboards come in, then yes, you could imitate Rembrandat's work pretty damn closely. The difference between grandmasters and decent chessplayers isn't that grandmasters are fundamentally "better" at chess, but that they are faster to recognise the best moves, more confident, and more experienced. They know more.

You would get your ass handed to you.

Yes, in straight up play. Not in a playbymail game with a move every two months, if I had what I said before.

Have you found a case yet where a GM lost any kind of 1-1 game against a casual player?

At the table? No, and I doubt I ever will. Again, how is that relevant? We're talking about a game played by mail over 8 years, with moves once every two months, not one played face to face.

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.

Why do you assume that Rollans was behaving rationally?

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.

Again, at the table. If that group had had two months between moves, I don't find it inconcievable that they could have beaten the GM.

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.

Okay, so my post was wasted. Nice.

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Yes, and I've just bet you a thousand Euro on it. You really don't understand the game enough to take this wager. Actually, you could get a live grandmaster to take the challenge. Tell him/her that the only condition is that I get a month between moves and that I will not be on the honour system and have access to a Cray supercomputer which is running Deep Fritz, and I will acquire all updates to it or alternately use the latest version of Rybka that is available over those eight years.

[Foolmewunz]

snip


Okay, so my post was wasted. Nice.


No, we're both just arguing the same sort of obvious points to someone who can't or won't get them. (You can take my place in the match against Capablanca's ghost or Anand - I believe he's the highest rated player now - since no one can check behind the curtains, we shift off any time we want.:spjimlad::spjimlad: )

[Foolmewunz]

Aside:

We used to have a bunch of serious chess players on these forums, but I don't know if any are still lurking.

I had heard of the old flim flam routine back in the 60s. There are chess hustlers out there (see Washington Square Park - chess corner - they can point out the money players), some with fairly high ratings, if not at Tal's level.

The demo that Malerin mentions is a scam that could win you No. Players times $1.00 or times $5.00 quite easily. Supposedly it was common in Europe, although it could've been pre WWW urban legend.

It goes something like this. Visiting GM plays a few games at a good chess club in a town he's visiting. Maybe even a demo. (This is all just so that he can get a feel for the club and its members' abilities.) After probably drawing or losing a few games that he shouldn't, comes the hustle...

"Here, I'll tell you what.... your whole hundred and ten person club against me. You guys get to play white, and can have three minutes to vote on every move... All of you. Between a hundred and ten guys, surely you'll come up with the right moves. A draw goes to you, though, so all you have to do is draw. How about say I give you a buck each if I lose or draw, but you give me give bucks each if I win?"

It's a perfect con. Why? They are average players with no great high poobah of chess in their ranks. He makes sure of that in advance. And they are going to vote, amongst 110 people and come up with average moves. Invariably, to take down a GM you have to have one or two inspired moves that look like they're going to get you killed. 110 average players won't generally come up with that move. And, like all con artists and hucksters, he guides them away from the correct move or two if they should stumble upon them.

[Malerin]

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?

But this is such a red herring. Korochoi was under NO time restraints. He had weeks to evaluate each move.

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 still have not provided any evidence at all that a casual player has ever beaten a GM in a 1-1 game. Playing 30 people at the same time is another red herring because Korochoi was PLAYING ONLY ONE PERSON. I thought you were the Google Master?

You even found results that show that your GM lost 3 games to club players.

Yes, playing 30 other people AT THE SAME TIME. Again, totally unrelated to what Korochoi's situation.

I cited the games I saw one lose at an exhibition here. WE WERE DISCUSSING EXHIBITIONS.

One of the games you claimed you saw involved a grandmaster, the other a master. No names. Your story is apocrphyal and unverifiable. That's supposed to be bad evidence, according to you guys.



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.

And I have yet to see any proof that a casual player has ever defeated a GM 1-1. Use your mad Googling skilz and find some!

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?

I'm moving the goalposts to exclude games that have nothing in common with the game Korochoi played (e.g., playing 30+ people simultaneously). You're right, it's completely unreasonable to demand evidence remotely resemble the question at hand. If you could find a GM who had a heart attack in the middle of a game and accidently knocked over his king, I'm sure you would rejoice, "Aha! See, a GM CAN lose to a lowly ranked player!".

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.

Then I'm sure you can find one. And you may not make as much playng chess as poker, but to discount tournaments as sources of both pride and money is absurd. Veselin Topalov, top player in the world, was a pretty busy guy in 2007 (and 2008). In 2004, the winner of the World Chess Championship walked away with about $100,000. I wouldn't turn that down. Would you? And to claim GM's don't take their ratings seriously because there's not millions in prize money ignores the fact that in nearly every sport, ratings and standings are jealously coveted because people like to be recognized as the BEST at things.

[Mark Felt]

I'm moving the goalposts to exclude games that have nothing in common with the game Korochoi played (e.g., playing 30+ people simultaneously).

Then why aren't you excluding every game that was played at the table?

[Malerin]

Your analogy is crap. Among other things, painting isn't chess. Let's boil it down.

If you had two months between finalising your brushstrokes, and the ability to visualise seven or eight brushstrokes past that, which is where the chessboards come in, then yes, you could imitate Rembrandat's work pretty damn closely. The difference between grandmasters and decent chessplayers isn't that grandmasters are fundamentally "better" at chess, but that they are faster to recognise the best moves, more confident, and more experienced. They know more.



Yes, in straight up play. Not in a playbymail game with a move every two months, if I had what I said before.



At the table? No, and I doubt I ever will. Again, how is that relevant? We're talking about a game played by mail over 8 years, with moves once every two months, not one played face to face.



Why do you assume that Rollans was behaving rationally?



Again, at the table. If that group had had two months between moves, I don't find it inconcievable that they could have beaten the GM.



Okay, so my post was wasted. Nice.

The two of you are so clueless it would be hysterical if this were not a supposed "skeptics" forum. Now it's just sad. Without a scintilla of proof given, on pure supposition, both of you claim, with the fervitude given to claims about "truths" in the Bible, that you can play a GM to a draw (or even a close game) by literally reading a few books, studying past games and concentrating "real hard" for a "long time". You can't produce one game where this has ACTUALLY HAPPENED, yet you assert it with the same force as a mathematical axiom.

Seriously, what do you REALLY think?

[Jimbo07]

I will... use the latest version of Rybka that is available over those eight years.

You wouldn't need a month between moves! ;)

Right now, the wins on the very best computer are still giving and taking with very best humans. Eight years from now, I expect computer wins will be consistently decisive.

Wiki has a cool list:

# 1997, Deep Blue wins a six-game match against Garry Kasparov.
# 2002, Vladimir Kramnik draws an eight-game match against Deep Fritz.
# 2003, Kasparov draws a six-game match against Deep Junior.
# 2003, Kasparov draws a four-game match against X3D Fritz.
# 2005, Hydra defeats Michael Adams 5.5-0.5.
# 2005, a team of computers (Hydra, Deep Junior and Fritz), wins 8.5-3.5 against a rather strong human team formed by Veselin Topalov, Ruslan Ponomariov and Sergey Karjakin, who had an average ELO rating of 2681.
# 2006, the undisputed world champion, Vladimir Kramnik, is defeated 4-2 by Deep Fritz.

Looks like it's slowly starting to tilt toward the computers... :boxedin:

[Mark Felt]

The two of you are so clueless it would be hysterical if this were not a supposed "skeptics" forum. Now it's just sad. Without a scintilla of proof given, on pure supposition, both of you claim, with the fervitude given to claims about "truths" in the Bible, that you can play a GM to a draw (or even a close game) by literally reading a few books, studying past games and concentrating "real hard" for a "long time". You can't produce one game where this has ACTUALLY HAPPENED, yet you assert it with the same force as a mathematical axiom.

Seriously, what do you REALLY think?

Woah, woah, woah, back the fun bus back the funk up.

both of you claim, with the fervitude given to claims about "truths" in the Bible, that you can play a GM to a draw (or even a close game) by literally reading a few books, studying past games and concentrating "real hard" for a "long time".

Yes, we claim exactly that. What decides matches is time. With no time limit as such, with access to every match available by the GM in question, with access to games played by a great many other GMs(I'd need that, I don't know if Foolmewunz would), yes, we could play any given GM to a draw. We would lose flat out on our face in any game with a time limit, but with two months to prepare for each move, we're at a great advantage compared to a normal game. How long does a GM need to come up with the perfect move for any given situation? Not very long. How long to come up with the perfect seven moves in advance? Longer, but still a split second compared to any other level of play. If we nullify that tremendous advantage, all he has over us is his knowledge and experience, and those are both replicable and able to be studied.

You can't produce one game where this has ACTUALLY HAPPENED, yet you assert it with the same force as a mathematical axiom.

Have you been reading our posts at all, ever? Neither of us has ever denied that in a straight face to face game, we would lose to a GM, and so would any other player not ranked as a GM. This wouldn't be such a game.

[Malerin]

You wouldn't need a month between moves! ;)

Right now, the wins on the very best computer are still giving and taking with very best humans. Eight years from now, I expect computer wins will be consistently decisive.

Wiki has a cool list:

# 1997, Deep Blue wins a six-game match against Garry Kasparov.
# 2002, Vladimir Kramnik draws an eight-game match against Deep Fritz.
# 2003, Kasparov draws a six-game match against Deep Junior.
# 2003, Kasparov draws a four-game match against X3D Fritz.
# 2005, Hydra defeats Michael Adams 5.5-0.5.
# 2005, a team of computers (Hydra, Deep Junior and Fritz), wins 8.5-3.5 against a rather strong human team formed by Veselin Topalov, Ruslan Ponomariov and Sergey Karjakin, who had an average ELO rating of 2681.
# 2006, the undisputed world champion, Vladimir Kramnik, is defeated 4-2 by Deep Fritz.

Looks like it's slowly starting to tilt toward the computers... :boxedin:


How long before they pass a Turing Test?

[Foolmewunz]

The two of you are so clueless it would be hysterical if this were not a supposed "skeptics" forum. Now it's just sad. Without a scintilla of proof given, on pure supposition, both of you claim, with the fervitude given to claims about "truths" in the Bible, that you can play a GM to a draw (or even a close game) by literally reading a few books, studying past games and concentrating "real hard" for a "long time". You can't produce one game where this has ACTUALLY HAPPENED, yet you assert it with the same force as a mathematical axiom.

Seriously, what do you REALLY think?

You're taking this kind of personal, aren't you? What kind of reaction do you expect from a skeptics' forum where the constant cry is for "evidence"?

Other than that, so's we don't seem to be ganging up on you.... What Mark Felt Just Said.

[Foolmewunz]

You wouldn't need a month between moves! ;)

Right now, the wins on the very best computer are still giving and taking with very best humans. Eight years from now, I expect computer wins will be consistently decisive.

Wiki has a cool list:

# 1997, Deep Blue wins a six-game match against Garry Kasparov.
# 2002, Vladimir Kramnik draws an eight-game match against Deep Fritz.
# 2003, Kasparov draws a six-game match against Deep Junior.
# 2003, Kasparov draws a four-game match against X3D Fritz.
# 2005, Hydra defeats Michael Adams 5.5-0.5.
# 2005, a team of computers (Hydra, Deep Junior and Fritz), wins 8.5-3.5 against a rather strong human team formed by Veselin Topalov, Ruslan Ponomariov and Sergey Karjakin, who had an average ELO rating of 2681.
# 2006, the undisputed world champion, Vladimir Kramnik, is defeated 4-2 by Deep Fritz.

Looks like it's slowly starting to tilt toward the computers... :boxedin:

They're already starting the computer v computer competition. I really don't follow the developments enough (it's a whole different sub-set of chessfreaks), but I'd heard for a couple of years that Rybka had a far higher Elo rating than Deep Fritz, and even consistently higher than humans, but I read somewhere in back-checking something for this thread that Fritz 10 v Rybka 3.2(? not sure and now can't find it) has Fritz out on top like 4 to 2. The computers will probably be asking for show up fees like tennis and golf pros, soon.

I think the difference in computers now is that they still go for the massive numbers crunching of moves, but also have better weighting for victory than before. The original programs all went for control of the center of the board, as there is such an obvious mathematical/numerical advantage in doing so. Such control, though tends towards draws. Live players could beat them by working around that known silicone preference. Now the programs look for winning conditions two or twenty moves ahead.

[ddt]

So it applies on both sides of the game. Winning or losing. I can play a pretty fair game of chess, but Korchnoi's third cousin four times removed could beat me in regulation time. But given a week between moves, access to books and friends for advice (and even a primitive 80s chess computer), and I'm pretty sure I could play him to a draw. And I was never ranked. (Never played enough tournaments when I was serious about the game.)

Has anyone here actually looked at the game? I don't think anyone yet posted a link, so here it is (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1486372).

I only ever played chess recreationally, so don't take my word for it, but a number of things about the game struck me:

1) Korchnoi wins the pawn advantage in move 18 and doesn't let it go. By that time, all bishops and knights are out of the game;
2) in moves 19/20, the queens are captured, so both players are left with 2 rooks and pawns.
3) in moves 25/26, both players capture one of the other's rooks.

Point (1) is still in the opening phase; even by 1980s standards, opening theory extended to move 15-20, IIRC. Point (2) essentially means we're now in the endgame and we skipped the middle game altogether. At least from point (3) on, we're again in charted endgame theory about how to take advantage of an extra pawn. Correct me if I'm wrong on these counts.

I'm only an amateur, but I couldn't see where Korchnoi was in trouble during the game. He seemed quite eager to get the pieces as quick as possible from the board and go to the endgame.

So as I see it, the non-GM player could get most of the game from the existing chess literature, and he had 1 month per move to think about it. Seems quite enough to me.

[Cuddles]

But this is such a red herring. Korochoi was under NO time restraints. He had weeks to evaluate each move.

And you really think that a grandmaster had nothing better to do in those weeks other than study a friendly mail game with a nobody?

Playing 30 people at the same time is another red herring because Korochoi was PLAYING ONLY ONE PERSON.

Really? You honestly believe that a grandmaster chess player didn't play a single other game for 8 years? Really? As others have already said, it's painfully obvious that you're being deliberately stupid. Please stop it and actually try to participate in a sensible conversation.

[Malerin]

And you really think that a grandmaster had nothing better to do in those weeks other than study a friendly mail game with a nobody?



Really? You honestly believe that a grandmaster chess player didn't play a single other game for 8 years? Really? As others have already said, it's painfully obvious that you're being deliberately stupid. Please stop it and actually try to participate in a sensible conversation.

Because playing 40 people at the same time in 6 hours is the same as playing multiple games over 8 years. :rolleyes:

http://www.marconews.com/news/2008/apr/19/forty-players-no-match-chess-grandmaster-marco-eve/

You're absolutely right. All the baseless suppositions are true. In fact, lets go further: a toddler could have beaten Korochnoi. No, wait! Moving the pieces randomly with no knowledge of the game whatsoever would have been enough. What GM would even look at the board in a match spanning 8 years, am I right?

Since you're completely making **** up at this point, let's go for the brass ring: Korochnoi COULDN'T play chess at all! Through an astonishing coincidence, all of his random moves just happened to catapult him to 3rd place in the world. Fortunately for Korochnoi, his luck held up, and he was able to fend off the medium'ss vicious onslaught and win the game.

True story.

[Mashuna]

Koronchoi couldn't play chess. He just channelled a grand master to make his moves for him. However, in this case, someone else happened to channel the same grand master. That's why the match ended in a draw.

[Civilized Worm]

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


If he was worried about being known as the grandmaster who lost to a ghost he wouldn't have accepted the challenge in the first place.


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.


Having successfully channelled a dead grandmaster would have looked good on any mediums CV would it not? I'm sure it must have upped his profile in medium circles. Was Rollans in the business of giving private readings? How much did he charge?


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.


And you're right, we'll never know the full explanation for what happened. All we can do is see what explanations would be most likely without having to resort to unproven phenomena.


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


Why would he? Like James Randi, Houdini set his sights on the most high profile mediums, and they charge.


The two of you are so clueless it would be hysterical if this were not a supposed "skeptics" forum. Now it's just sad.


OMG so abusive wah wah wah!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'm not claiming it's impossible for a below 1800 rated player to defeat a Grandmaster. Just that it is very very unlikely.

Actually, your claim was:

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

You didn't sat unlikely, you said that when they lost it was "invariably" to another grandmaster or a prodigy on their way to becoming a grandmaster.

Can you become a grandmaster only paying chess by mail?
If not, why not?

Answer those honestly and you start to understand how unimpressive your evidence is.

[Ersby]

This was discussed on a chess site in March:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1486372

My favourite quote:

I have no doubt in mind that was Maroczy playing white. I´m not so sure that Korchnoi was black though...

[YeahDude]

Malerin,

I have one simple question to ask you. Please answer it. What is the more likely scenario:

A ghost of a grandmaster was submitting moves via a mdeium to play a game of chess over an 8 year period.

or

A clever person realized that he could fool people by pretending to be channeling the 'ghost' of a grandmaster, but instead used some form of cheating to complete the match.

Simple and direct question, which scenario is more likely?

[Ashles]

Is there any way of comparing the processing power of computers available at the time?

Obviously the computers in 1985 had nowhere near the processing power of current chess computers, however there was a large amount of time a computer might have been able to be left dedicated to each move.

Does anyone know relatively how leaving computers of the time running on a chess game might compare with a human gamer or modern chess computer?

[Jimbo07]

Is there any way of comparing the processing power of computers available at the time?

Obviously the computers in 1985 had nowhere near the processing power of current chess computers, however there was a large amount of time a computer might have been able to be left dedicated to each move.

Does anyone know relatively how leaving computers of the time running on a chess game might compare with a human gamer or modern chess computer?

I played with one of those chess game toys when I was a kid, but don't remember much, so I'm going more on computing here, than the actual product. I don't think the product could be left for a certain amount of time. Products available to the casual user would probably have been best exploited by trying multiple moves and observing the results.

[Mark Felt]

You're absolutely right. All the baseless suppositions are true. In fact, lets go further: a toddler could have beaten Korochnoi. No, wait! Moving the pieces randomly with no knowledge of the game whatsoever would have been enough. What GM would even look at the board in a match spanning 8 years, am I right?

:boggled:

[Ashles]

Also, as previously mentioned, if you wanted to demonstrate communication from the other side at a high level - why pick this example that is so open to debate and the possibility of hoax that it becomes pointless as an exercise?

Why not contact physicists, inventors, mathematicians... People who could, given time and a new means of communication, perhaps produce new material and information. Imagine how impressive that would be.

In fact might we assume this has been attempted by psychics many times to no avail?
If not, why aren't they trying this?

Or was this a single lucky instance of a long time-span occasion of contact with the dead?
And it was wasted on a chess game.

[drkitten]

Is there any way of comparing the processing power of computers available at the time?

Obviously the computers in 1985 had nowhere near the processing power of current chess computers, however there was a large amount of time a computer might have been able to be left dedicated to each move.

As a general rule of thumb, the processing power of computers doubles every 18 to 24 months (Moore's Law) (footnote 1). So between 1985 and 2005 we had 20 years, or about 12-16 doublings,

2^16 is about 65,000. So computers today (well, in 2005) were about 65,000 times more powerful than the ones back then. So anything a computer today could do in a minute, a computer then could do in about a month and a half. A person with access to lots of computers (for example, a student at a well-equipped school such as MIT) would of course be able to use multiple computers and get even more processing power.

Producing grandmaster-level moves every two months does not seem to be an unreasonable challenge for a dedicated computer in 1985.

(Footnote 1) Yes, I know that's not "really" Moore's law, which refers to transistor density.

[JoeEllison]

Also, as previously mentioned, if you wanted to demonstrate communication from the other side at a high level - why pick this example that is so open to debate and the possibility of hoax that it becomes pointless as an exercise?

Why not contact physicists, inventors, mathematicians... People who could, given time and a new means of communication, perhaps produce new material and information. Imagine how impressive that would be.

In fact might we assume this has been attempted by psychics many times to no avail?
If not, why aren't they trying this?

Or was this a single lucky instance of a long time-span occasion of contact with the dead?
And it was wasted on a chess game.

That points out an aspect of the stupidity of belief in psychics that is rarely discussed: the utter banality of the information "from the other side" and the improbability of what is "communicated." It isn't ever anything useful and specific. Ghosts have a magical speech impediment when it comes to anything vital, or they can communicate perfectly well to convey the next chess move? The dead body or kidnapped child is "near a body of water" or "on a road that starts with an "M' or an 'H' maybe", but the psychics can hear or see the next chess move or the sex of your first-born crotch spawn perfectly? Really?:rolleyes:

[Mark Felt]

That points out an aspect of the stupidity of belief in psychics that is rarely discussed: the utter banality of the information "from the other side" and the improbability of what is "communicated." It isn't ever anything useful and specific. Ghosts have a magical speech impediment when it comes to anything vital, or they can communicate perfectly well to convey the next chess move? The dead body or kidnapped child is "near a body of water" or "on a road that starts with an "M' or an 'H' maybe", but the psychics can hear or see the next chess move or the sex of your first-born crotch spawn perfectly? Really?:rolleyes:

To be fair, if ghosts can only communicate in single letters and numbers, they're perfectly suited to playing chess. Except in how their ability stagnates, if we take the guys on the thread linked previously as qualified commentaters on chess.

[Ashles]

To be fair, if ghosts can only communicate in single letters and numbers,
All the better for producing some groundbreaking physics formulae. :)

Also I can't help feeling communicating using only numbers and letters shouldn't be a barrier from say... forming whole words. :)

[Sideroxylon]

Carl Sagan pondered these questions in "Demon Haunted World":

How is it that channelers never give us verifiable information? Why does Alexander the Great never tell us about the exact location of his tomb, Fermat about his Last Theorem, John Wilkes Booth about the Lincoln assassination conspiracy, Hermann Goering about the Reichstag fire? Why don't Sophocles, Democritus, and Aristarchus dictate their lost books? Don't they wish future generations to have access to their masterpieces?

[Mark Felt]

Fermat about his Last Theorem

It was a hoax, doncha know?

[Ashles]

Carl Sagan pondered these questions in "Demon Haunted World":

How is it that channelers never give us verifiable information? Why does Alexander the Great never tell us about the exact location of his tomb, Fermat about his Last Theorem, John Wilkes Booth about the Lincoln assassination conspiracy, Hermann Goering about the Reichstag fire? Why don't Sophocles, Democritus, and Aristarchus dictate their lost books? Don't they wish future generations to have access to their masterpieces?
Well for 8 years the conduit betwixt this world and the next was giving a busy signal for some reason...

[Foolmewunz]

I am channeling the spirit of Politeness Man, right now.

He told me, in a series of letters and numbers that I should convey the following to Malerin:

H -a -Pp-y ... B .... I rth D aY.


(Or, I'm in a different time zone, maybe, and my forum software shows the rollicking birthday icon on you posts?)

[Brian-M]

Is there any way of comparing the processing power of computers available at the time?

Obviously the computers in 1985 had nowhere near the processing power of current chess computers, however there was a large amount of time a computer might have been able to be left dedicated to each move.

Does anyone know relatively how leaving computers of the time running on a chess game might compare with a human gamer or modern chess computer?

One method would be clock speed. (modern computers don't give the actual clock speed any more, but equivilent clock speed, so even though the processors are much complex, clock speed is still a good indicator of processing power.)

Two months is 86400 minutes, so a 386 computer running at 25MHz for two months would be equivilent to a 2160000Mhz computer running for one minute, or a 216000Mhz computer running for 10 minutes.

It's obvious that given enough time to think, even a crappy computer can kick the ass of any human grandmaster.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

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



Back when I was more interested in chess (about 30 years ago?) a British GrandMaster (can't remember his name but I think he was our only one at the time - he used to appear on a series called 'The Master Game' I think) played a roomful of schoolkids 'simultaneously'. Whilst he won most of the matches he did lose one - presumably because the kid could spend a lot more time on each move in that particular game than he could and he had other games on his mind. I don't believe the kid went on to any greatness.

I am more than happy to be corrected on this as I am relying on a very old memory but, if correct, it would suggest that your 'invariably' may be overstating the case...

Anyway, there would be little evidence of Grandmasters being beaten by non-Grandmasters as such matches are presumably rare.

ETA: apologies, I should have read the rest of the thread before posting. Others have raised this point before me (and with much greater evidence than my hazy recollections) but I see the goal posts have now been moved...

[Cuddles]

Because playing 40 people at the same time in 6 hours is the same as playing multiple games over 8 years. :rolleyes:

http://www.marconews.com/news/2008/apr/19/forty-players-no-match-chess-grandmaster-marco-eve/

You're absolutely right. All the baseless suppositions are true. In fact, lets go further: a toddler could have beaten Korochnoi. No, wait! Moving the pieces randomly with no knowledge of the game whatsoever would have been enough. What GM would even look at the board in a match spanning 8 years, am I right?

Since you're completely making **** up at this point, let's go for the brass ring: Korochnoi COULDN'T play chess at all! Through an astonishing coincidence, all of his random moves just happened to catapult him to 3rd place in the world. Fortunately for Korochnoi, his luck held up, and he was able to fend off the medium'ss vicious onslaught and win the game.

True story.

Hey, you're the one claiming that a dead guy talked to a conman solely in order to lose a game of chess over 8 years. Perhaps you should take a look at your own story before trying to imply that other's are making things up.

It's obvious that given enough time to think, even a crappy computer can kick the ass of any human grandmaster.

Of course, really slow computers would actually have a bigger advantage than fast ones, since by the time they made their move, the human grandmaster would be dead.:)

[ddt]

Malerin, another question - this time about those "questions" put forward to the spirit of Maróczy.

The "survivalfiles" PDF you referred to in your OP make a big fuss about the right spelling of a name: Romi or Romih. Eisenbeiss asked the "spirit" if it knew someone by the name of Romi, and the spirit answers: no, but it knew someone by the name of Romih.

However, Maróczy himself used the spelling Romi during his lifetime, see Chess Notes:
Our correspondent, Javier Asturiano Molina, comments that the Romi/Romih spelling question is relevant to the well-known ‘spiritualist’ yarn about a game between Maróczy and Korchnoi, widely discussed on the Internet and elsewhere. It may be recalled that, as a test question, the ghost of Maróczy was purportedly asked whether he recognized the name ‘Romi’. The answer that came back was negative, although he did recall having, in 1930, an opponent named ‘Romih’.

We note, though, that both ‘Romi’ and ‘Romih’ were used in chess literature while Maróczy was alive, seemingly at random. Indeed, Maróczy himself used both. To deal only with his victory over Romi/Romih at San Remo, 1930, the following versions appeared in Maróczy’s writings:

and it follows with his own write-up of that game.

Pretty stupid of Eisenbeiss & Rolans to make a big fuss about it? They're not even good at conning us.

[Foolmewunz]

DDT,

Yeah that seemed like a bit of the traditional flim flam man extra touches to me, too. They didn't do enough research and thought this would be really obscure sounding (and they made it sound more so), but knew that they had documents to prove that he'd played at San Remo as Romih, so could pull that rabbit out of the hat to ooohs and aaahs from the willing believers. And it worked. Witness Malerin's gob-smacked awe at the result!

As a con, this isn't even a good one. (Which might be the only thing I can say to support Malerin's belief in this hoax. e.g. ... Why didn't they do it better? To a believer this sort of dumb "error" lends credibility.)

Upon thinking about it, I want to vote Korchnoi = willingly duped but not part of it. If Viktor wanted to pull this off to convince the whole world, all he would've had to do was to play by telex or fax or even play the medium live. Get it over with in an afternoon and be absolutely awed. The whole world would've watched. As it is, it's a woo woo footnote in chess history.

[ddt]

Upon thinking about it, I want to vote Korchnoi = willingly duped but not part of it.
Yes, a couple of people have already commented on Korchnoi's gullibility. I also remember from the times I followed chess a bit the fuss about Karpov's parapsychologist in the audience in Linares (?), and something about yoghurt in the same match I think.


If Viktor wanted to pull this off to convince the whole world, all he would've had to do was to play by telex or fax or even play the medium live. Get it over with in an afternoon and be absolutely awed. The whole world would've watched. As it is, it's a woo woo footnote in chess history.
It's a bit of bad timing, isn't it? There's also the more recent story of an anonymous player of GM strength in an online chess forum - who some thought to be Fisher :). They could have used this guy to impress the world.

BTW, have you looked at the game in more depth? Found commentaries? My chess is real rusty, but I wasn't very impressed by it.

I'd also like a second source for Hans Ree's comments - that may be in Dutch too. We only have it from a blog post which claims to copy a column of Larry Evans who cites Hans Ree. But I just read a column of Edward Winter's Chess Notes (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html) with a devastating critique of Larry Evans' columns - foremost of his sloppiness in research.

[Foolmewunz]

BTW, have you looked at the game in more depth? Found commentaries? My chess is real rusty, but I wasn't very impressed by it.



Honestly, I hadn't played out the game until you mentioned it. I just went through it about a minute to a move, and I found a bigger problem in the early game than the middle. Several people on the chessgames.com site mentioned the same move for Casper. #10 Seems a wasted opportunity.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1486372&kpage=1

Pause for a while before ghosty-boy's 10th move (white). Would you have just adjusted your king when there were two very good attack options available, also forcing black to cede you a lot of the center of the board? If Viktor ever thought there was a problem I'm guessing it was after 8 and 9 when he realized the opening he'd left.

The middle game is sloppy on Korchnoi's part, but then the ghost let him have his way, it would seem.

Fritz 10 (according to someone on that site) plays it out from the early position and can come out with white gaining a draw, at best. With that in mind, it's hard to see how Viktor seriously thought he might lose. "Might not win" might've been a more accurate concern, but a loss would be pretty far fetched.

[ddt]

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1486372&kpage=1

Pause for a while before ghosty-boy's 10th move (white). Would you have just adjusted your king when there were two very good attack options available, also forcing black to cede you a lot of the center of the board? If Viktor ever thought there was a problem I'm guessing it was after 8 and 9 when he realized the opening he'd left.

What I can find of this position is that it's not clear who has the advantage. The opening is the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Winawer/Nimzowitsch Variation in the French Defence. Wiki mentions Kd1 and Ne2 as the normal answers. It's a variation that gives both parties offense possibilities.

White has to consider that black has both the possibility of Qxc3+ and Qxe5+, so the least he has to do is prevent those moves from threatening the king.

Kd1 seems to me a bit of a cop-out. Ne2 is indeed more aggressive, but the drawback is that white's King's bishop is now locked in, and can only be developed with a fianchetto. You can't first develop the bishop, because you then get 10. Lb5+, Ld7 11. Lxd7+ Kxd7+ 12. Ne2 Rxg2 and black invades on the King's flank which was white's domain, and white cannot castle on the King's side.

Qd3 seems not aggressive at all to me. Basically white blows off his attack on black's king side.

White could also do cxd4, thus protecting his e-pawn, and black cannot invade in c2 either because it's protected by the Queen. I wonder what's against that move?

[Mark Felt]

Anyway, there would be little evidence of Grandmasters being beaten by non-Grandmasters as such matches are presumably rare.

There would also be little evidence of any playbypost games where GMs were beaten by non-GMs if neither party felt like publicising it.

[Foolmewunz]

What I can find of this position is that it's not clear who has the advantage. The opening is the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Winawer/Nimzowitsch Variation in the French Defence. Wiki mentions Kd1 and Ne2 as the normal answers. It's a variation that gives both parties offense possibilities.

White has to consider that black has both the possibility of Qxc3+ and Qxe5+, so the least he has to do is prevent those moves from threatening the king.

Kd1 seems to me a bit of a cop-out. Ne2 is indeed more aggressive, but the drawback is that white's King's bishop is now locked in, and can only be developed with a fianchetto. You can't first develop the bishop, because you then get 10. Lb5+, Ld7 11. Lxd7+ Kxd7+ 12. Ne2 Rxg2 and black invades on the King's flank which was white's domain, and white cannot castle on the King's side.

Qd3 seems not aggressive at all to me. Basically white blows off his attack on black's king side.

White could also do cxd4, thus protecting his e-pawn, and black cannot invade in c2 either because it's protected by the Queen. I wonder what's against that move?

Oh, I agree that the variations mentioned all have their drawbacks, but I don't see much of anything with Kd1. I know it's one of the traditional positions in this variation, but the entire approach seems to me to be based on turning over the white opening initiative and getting into a defensive position. It's a drawn game strategy. And, again, I can't see why Viktor would've thought he was possibly going to lose in the "early game" as he's been quoted as saying. Of course, top players think of the early game as up to move 20/21, so maybe he was talking about later?

I'm not strong enough a player nor am I so well read on it to verify all the commentary but many of the posters there comment that Maroczy seems well versed enough in later-developed (e.g. after his too-mortal body departed this world) strategies that he was playing variations he must have learned from the beyond. Frankly I have no idea what they're on about, specifically as Nimzowich was developed as a counter to French/Winawer during his playing years, wasn't it?

Cxd4? I liked it myself, but I always played good players too aggressively so I habitutally back down from my first instinctive choice. I'm not that great a player, and I always figured that I was giving up board for points (as I often found that to be the result). Something that I always missed was an old adage that I read.... "A piece on a square does not control that square - you need to be attacking it, not occupying it."

ETA: I hadn't realized, though, how decent the on line boards and gameplay are now. I may start getting into replaying some old favorites as it's a helluva lot easier than a decade ago when I was last fiddling with on line boards. (I don't have the time to play any longer... and my ego couldn't take being whupped so readily as I can see some of these players would do. But I enjoy replaying good games, just to see the positions that are so hard to see merely from the notation.)

[arthwollipot]

Hey, you're the one claiming that a dead guy talked to a conman solely in order to lose a game of chess over 8 years. Perhaps you should take a look at your own story before trying to imply that other's are making things up.Gold! :D

[Brian-M]

Of course, really slow computers would actually have a bigger advantage than fast ones, since by the time they made their move, the human grandmaster would be dead.:)

Ah, yes. Death, the ultimate forfeit. :)


My point is, letting an 80's computer think for two months between moves would be the same as linking together 100 modern computers to make a mini-supercomputer and letting it think for (an average of) 10 minutes between moves.
Sure, it might not be able to beat a grandmaster, but a draw wouldn't be out of the question.

Personally, I think it's more likely that a human player was spending an hour or two a day studying the board to rack up 60 to 120 hours of thinking and research time per move compared with the maximum two or three hours per move Korchnoi would have put into it. Sounds boring to me, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.

[luchog]

Did any of you know about it? Try to find any information about Eisenbeiss. You won't be able to, apart from this story.
First, that's not entirely true.

Second, if it was, it would be even more evidence against your position, and in favour of a hoax. The fact that Eisenbeiss was unknown prior to this, and has since gained a bit of noteriety is strong evidence that he created a hoax strictly for said noteriety.

I'm willing to be that, had he defeated Korchnoi, he'd admit to the hoax, and be claiming that he made all the moves himself, so he could have the noteriety of beating a grand master.