Do we have any problem with time?

Hi,

my opponent have negative time to move

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=76231

Is it OK?

Yes, it happens from time to time. It's not entirely normal but it happens. Richard will fix it as soon as he sees it.

Another symptom is the long waiting lists at the games lists.

We still have problem with time...

1/2 hour ago it was -18 , and now +24...

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=76231

Something wrong...

Your opponent is on vacation - that means he loses one vacation day, and gains 24 hours. How he could go from -18 to +24 is strange, though. He should gain either 24 or 48 hours (one or two days), not 42...

Marius

2 Marius Halsør, yes I know he is in vacation, but ... he made last move at 2003-09-01 04:51, it's more that 30 days..

And now(15:11 GMT) he has (-2) hours to move...

Yesterday he "wins" 6 hours, and today gonna gain again...??

Is it OK?

I already sent message to Richard, but he didn't respond me yet..

I have another problem related to time (well, my opponent has a problem in fact).

In a game in the first StreetSoccer championship which started yesterday (#87750), my opponent klaashaas has apparently 18 hours left. But the game has just started? How is that possible?

Mac S

It happened again!

Mirror_man is suddenly down to 24 hours in the game against me in the newly started GWG ch.ship.

Please look into this Richard. I really dont want games to be decided on time when we have a bug like this.

It is, in truth, not clear that chess is a game of calculation. Of course there are times when intense calculation is called for, and often the master is better at dealing with these situations than the amateur. No wonder, he has had more practice than the amateur, but all the same his innate calculating ability need not be any greater. Most of the time it is something quite different that is required in chess, something more akin to 'understanding' or 'insight'. "Many players, even of a high calibre, will assert, half jokingly and half seriously, that a difficult labour of analysis can be replaced by intuition. 'I played this move in a flash - it was obvious it couldn't be bad' is the sort of thing we often hear in a post-mortem."Criticising such a policy is not simple - not after it has just been successful! [...] Instead of appraising the state of struggle on the basis of precise calculation,"The first requirement in any healthy problem solving situation is awareness that a problem exists. Until there is awareness that a condition exists which is causing some adverse effect, no positive, pro active action can be taken to change the situation for the better. (I am referring to "healthy" problem solving and "positive, proactive" action as opposed to unconscious, negative, reactive action - such as blaming, scapegoating, focusing on symptoms instead of cause, killing the messenger, etc.)"

I just wondered what this has to do with this topic?

From what I have noticed, this problem occurs when a player has a game that he has not made any move and he times out in one of his other games (ie looses a vacation day).

When he finaly starts moving in the game for the first time his available time is 24 hours only.

Josef,

Since strong human players use a combination of calculation and "insight", and strong computer chess programs use calculation and no "insight" and since strong computers are now more strong than strong humans, would you agree that the best chess is played when you use no "insight"?

But this is exactly wrong. A useful theory of representation must not treat sensory input as representational. Such information will be better treated as presentational. To see the distinction consider the following analogy. I am playing a game of chess with a friend, however I am not in the immediate vicinity of my friend or the chess board. Rather, I am at some other location where I learn about my opponent's moves, and issue my own moves, via the telephone. Now I can't keep track of everything in my head, so I keep with me a board which I use to keep track of what the 'official' game board looks like. But, and this will mark the crucial distinction, I also keep a second board with me. This second board I use to try out moves, perhaps long sequences of moves, and to assess the possible consequences of those moves and counter-moves. These two uses for chess boards are quite distinct. The first board's use is to accurately mirror the state of the official board, accurate information about this board being crucial to my chances of success in the game. The second board is emphatically NOT used to accurately mirror the state of the official board. Its usefulness for assessing possible positions depends on its not having to carry information about the actual state of the official board. It might be thought that one can get by with one board -- one can try out moves and then put the pieces back before making the official move. This is entirely correct. But note that what one is doing in this case is putting the same board to the two different uses I described. One uses the board now to present the real game position, and now takes it 'off line' to try out moves. According to the theory I will advance, only the second board is a representation, the first can perhaps be described as a presentation. Most of the recent philosophical literature on internal representation and content has been tying itself in knots because it has not distinguished internal representations from internal presentations, and has been trying futiley to give a theory of content for internal presentations, and then subjecting these theories to constraints and intuitions which properly belong to representations.TELEPATHY IS NOT PART OF THE COMPUTER. HOWEVER INSIGHTS IS THE CRYSTAL BALL OF TELEPATHY.

The pitfalls of this conflation should be nowhere more evident than where analyses of inaccurate perception (mistaking a horse on a dark night for a cow, for example) are taken to be relevant to the question why something can be a representation even when it is not an accurate CRYSTAL mirror.As I have remarked, what distinguishes presentations from representations is the use they are put to. A presentation is used to provide information about some other, probably external in some sense, state of affairs. It can be used in this way because the presentation is typically causally or informationally linked to the target in some way. The representation's use is quite different: it is used as a counterfactual presentation. It is, in very rough terms, a model of the target which is used off-line to try out possible actions, so that their likely consequences can be assessed without having to actually try those actions or suffer those consequences. Second, and this is implicit in the first point, the ability to use an entity as an off-line stand-in depends crucially on its not being causally linked to, and its not necessarily carrying information about, the entity it represents. This issue is actually quite touchy. Given my claim that a representation need carry no information about the target, two sorts of objections have been raised. First, to stick with the chess board analogy, the structure of the representational board must mirror the structure of the real board if it is to be of any use. As one person put it, "The second board, of course, carries many sorts of information about the first board that are necessary for it to be a representation of the first board, including the board's structure and the kinds of pieces that can be involved." This is correct. If I might be allowed to distinguish two sorts of information, say state information and structure information, I want to say that representations need carry none of the first, but I admit they must have at least some of the second.

I do agree in half of you concept, However it's much..MORE imperative to have both alternatives melted in brain hemispheres for future human memes survival . A system of practices with numerous reinforcing interactions is coherent and therefore inherently stable, whereas one with numerous conflicting interactions tends to be inherently unstable. The density of the interactions provides insight into the level of effort and coordination necessary to keep the parts of the system working. A target state with few interactions, whether reinforcing or conflicting, is loosely coupled and requires less coordination, while a target state with many interactions is tightly bound together, requiring more coordination. A transitional state dominated by conflicting interactions indicates a high degree of instability; therefore, an evaluation of the risk involved in the transition will be necessary and an alternative target system may emerge. I will be arguing in due course that the proper way to understand the representational brain is to understand the interplay of three distinct sorts of entity; controllers (these correspond to the players which actually make and try out moves in the chess game analogy), presentations (these will typically be sensory or perceptual states), and internal representations (or emulators). With these distinctions in hand, many of the problems which have frustrated attempts to understand natural representation dissolve. But before we can apply these distinctions with any clarity, they must be refined.

I'm so glad you chose to be brief on the subject this time. ;P

Bill:

I think that a team consisting of a strong chess program operated by a strong human chess player would beat a strong chess program playing on its own. If I'm right, that means that 'insight' is still an advantage.

Taral,

There is, however, evidence to the contrary, that when a human with "insight" "helps" a strong computer, the computer's game gets weaker not stronger. Nice try though.

Cheers,

Bill

Regarding insight;

It seems to me that insight is based on experience. Insight being that the experiences heretofore suggest, tho sometimes somewhat shakily, that events will transpire a certain way. The problem with insight is, by necessity, it is based on imcomplete analisys of a situation. If it were a complete analisys then it would be calculation and not insight. In essence, insight is an attempt at a calculation shortcut.

The way it relates to the games we play is the notion "I've been here before, done that, and it did or did not work out for me'. Based on that reasoning, we will either continue with our plan or via insight, try an alternate situation that we almost tryed before. This reseasoning, it seems to me, occurs somewhere near the conscious/subconscious barriar. Are we sure we almost tried that, was it a case of want, or did we calculate inconclusively?

Again, we seem left with the propostion that insight is an ATTEMPT at a calculation shortcut.

This seems to clear it up for me!

By the way, I have an issue with time. In my game 89932. in a gwg championship, I was posted with a win. Honored_Rooster with the loss. BUt He did not resign, nor did he time out, and the game is not over. What happened?

Dj,

Nice insight regarding insight.

Bill

Perception by unconscious methods is the primary activity of babies and children. After some time, conscious mechanisms appear to start working. By the time the child gets into school, the template to rule transition is already working, ready to put into work the development of personal theories of the world. From this moment, the child's brain start receiving a lot of rules by language (spoke, written, diagrammatic, audible, etc.). It is a new learning period TIME, in which the brain must discover how to link all those rules to the grounded patterns captured previously. There is, of course, several challengers with arguments from neuroscience and evolutionary anthropology with some indications that recurrent neural networks present similar learning abilities as those presented by children. Although I sympathize with both (Deacon and Elman), I see alternatives to the premises of the latter (use of neural networks). It seems that the mechanisms delineated previously (initial random creation of experimental patterns, terraced scan, analogical mapping, recursive application of the mechanisms on invented patterns) can eventually offer to symbolicists alternatives to the pure connectionist methods. Another good source of information in which he also defends recurrent connectionist models as being able to "learn complex recursive regularities.” It is presented. Also, connectionist solutions to the Do we have any problem with time?.."English past tense" problem. It is known that children often "over regulate" the past tense formation with constructions such as "go-ed.” Pinker and others explain this phenomenon by using two different mechanisms, one that accounts for the rules of adding "-ed" to the verb and other that treats the exceptions (irregular verbs) through rote memorization. Elman presents a connectionist system that is capable of treating, within a single mechanism, the regular and irregular forms of the verbs. This could be faced as an indication pointing to the dismissing of a symbolic rule-based mechanism in language. But recent evidences involving aphasic patients (Marslen-Wilson 1997) indicate that regular and irregular verb forms are processed in different parts of our brain. And new evidences of this using fMRI are also appearing. Some bold attempts at unifying cognitive architectures were made but, once more, failing on the most basic assumptions about the origin of intelligence. I consider this humble contribution as a way to review this problem from the beginning. What is more important, it is an attempt to reassess one? ; the goals of AI: human-like intelligence is not achievable through these methods. But intelligence as the capacity to creatively solve a large range of problems doesn't have to be human-like to be useful, and this line of research is probably one of the ways to let us experiment with the most important concepts behind the workings of our own brain.

Josef, you're lucky I'm not the administrator at this site. If I were I'd ban you from posting to the forums. Again, you're babbling and not responding to the questions and issues. I'm curious... how old are you? 12?

There is an option to "blacklist" players. Does this option has the effect of not seeing a person's postings to forums? I think not. It only blocks messages from that player. Can you fix that Richard with a second opttion that blocks seeing postings too?

No offence to Josef, though. I plan to block everyone else and enjoy his marvelous and educating postings.

Ref: 2003-10-20 Enquire

Black player White player

Slovakia 2133 Puerto Rico 2109

Garf Kalpik Josef Louis Villafan

Game info

Start time: 2003-09-19 13:12

Finish time: 2003-11-11 09:02

Result: 2 : 0

Tournament: chess.ch.4.1.1

List of moves TXT <>

1. e4 d5 2. e5 c5 3. d4 cxd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3 d4 6. Nb5 Nc6 7. Nf3 a6 8. Nbxd4 Nxe5 9. Nxe5 Qa5 10. Bd2 Qxe5 11. Ne2 Qxb2 12. Nc3 Nf6 13. Rb1 Qa3 14. Bd3 Qd6 15. Qc2 Be6 16. Rxb7 Qc6 17. Qa4 Qxa4 18. Nxa4 Bd5 19. Rb2 Bxg2 20. Rg1 Bc6 21. Nc5 Bb5 22. Bxb5 axb5 23. Rxb5 e6 24. a4 Nd5 25. Rg4 g6 26. Rc4 Bxc5 27. Rcxc5 Kd7 28. Rb7 Kd6 29. Rc4 f6 30. f4 Rab8 31. Bb4 Nxb4 32. Rbxb4 Rxb4 33. Rxb4 Ra8 34. Kf2 Ra5 35. Rd4 Rd5 36. Rb4 Rd2 37. Kg3 Rd3 38. Kf2 Kd5 39. Rb7 Ke4 40. Rxh7 Kxf4 41. Rh4 Kf5 42. Rb4 e5 43. h4 Ra3 44. Ke2 e4 45. Kd2 Ke5 46. Kd1 f5 47. Kd2 f4 48. Rb5 Ke6 49. Rb4 Kf5 50. Rb5 Kg4 51. Rg5 Kxh4 52. Rxg6 f3 53. Rh6 Kg5 54. Re6 Rd3 55. ???

Games do not win themselves.

In this game the vacation time never was applied to it..the reader will have appreciated that all that technique offers is the; [Do we have any problem with time?]... that, that..., the reader should notice that in some position will have appreciated that all that technique offers is the information that there are possibilites. What the possibilities are must be worked out imaginatively, or laboriously with a counting of fingers,and possibly, an abacus or/and maybe use during the 21 days vacation time. (It has never been decided whether there were an option for me resign/draw/vacation or any consious or unconsious act or any intentions for this action to take place); it has never been decided thru my email notification or any choices of options to decided whether there is a penalty on a a chess player <

One of the great advantages of chess technique is that when you begin to see it, you can begin to apply more of your effort toward analyzing and preparing for situations realistically.

Please I request an a RETR0-Investigation of circumstances that force this outcome, and/or explain "WHY" the 21 days wasn't applied to this time event.

Josef Louis Villafan

Chess Player

Yep. The negative times are back: 100841

Mr/Ms. Yayael'zumzum with all the respect:

“Millions of years of cortical evolution has given us a somewhat optimal way of doing neural computations and the cortical structure indicates that these computational principles are similar throughout cortex. But similar arguments goes for the individual cell types: all must play a vital role, else they would have been eliminated by evolution. Determining this role of each given cell type and how they combine with the whole network to convey information is a major challenge.”The games have a time limit of 240 hours + 36 hours/move. At the moment, that is the case for both tournament games and non-tournament games.“Currently, watching a human play chess against a computer is like watching a runner race a motorcycle. In both cases, the goals of the competition are being pursued, but by vastly different means. Why do we think one is a more interesting comparison than the other”” Understanding the brain's computing is a formidable challenge. It requires knowledge, insight, and scrutiny of many fields, including neurosciences, behavioral sciences, computer science and engineering, mathematical sciences, and ultimately also the humanities. That in itself is a challenge when different disciplines have their own special languages. One or the goals or many humanistic people is lowering this language barrier —— we must make our work understandable —— another is to use the Internet in creative ways to foster interaction across disciplines.” This means the following. At the beginning of the game both players have 240 hours on their clock. The clock of the on-move-player will count down. When she moves she gets 36 extra hours, with a maximum of 240. So if you move within 1 day and a half, the clock will be on 240. If the clock of a certain player on one of his games gets to 0, a day of vacation will be triggered. This means that all games of that player get 24 hours extra time. Each player has 20 vacation days.

bump

Even apart from the vital question of,"The first requirement in any healthy problem solving situation is awareness that a problem exists.