Is programming not limited by the hardware on which it resides?

As a P.S., the longest forced win for the superior side in Q v R is 30 moves. So, no, this is not trivial.

Watch a computer play the defending side. It will always pick the move that requires the longest mating combination. People will play by principle and defend or attack in a logical, but less than perfectly efficient manner. I submit that if I set up a complicated beginning position and gave it to a GM vs a strong computer and had someone randomly assign sides, that I could tell you with 100% certainty which player had each side with only the game score and an endgame tablebase.

Anyone who passes up a free checkmate on #2 is clearly not a computer. It is also clearly not an intelligent person. I

Q v R is a known pattern, but that does not mean it is a rote series of moves. I can win the ending, but a compute will put up a damn strong defense because it will push the loss out as far as possible. If the human makes an inaccuracy, they can easily go past the 50 move draw limit. Even Grandmasters have failed.

I can point you to players like IM Jeremy Silman who routinely points out that a move is a "computer move" in his books. Go play a computer in a Q v R endgame with you up the Queen. It will outplay any Grandmaster. There are many open positions where a computer will play moves that a GM would not even consider.

And who in the world would pass up fool's mate? It is a checkmate on the second move and I have no idea how this is some type of proof of a computer program?

If you can internalize calculating every possible move several plies deep, then you are right. But no human can, so you are wrong. My bet is you have never played more than a casual game of chess and don't understand how humans play chess or how computers do. They are two entirely different phenomenon.

Did you actually read my response?

Of course there are points where a human will coincide with a computer. In fact in most cases this will be true. But there are points in a game where there is a wide disparity.

A couple questions for you: Do you play chess? Have you played in a tournament? A nationally rated tournament? Played against computers at top level? Written an algorithm for computer chess? I've done all the above and though I admit I am not a master of chess, I understand how one determines someone is cheating. You cannot catch 100% of cheaters, but some situations are so absurd that you can say with 99.999% certainty that someone is cheating. Momentary periods of lucidity are not cheating. Series of moves from an amateur player that are not only brilliant but computer like are clear cheating.

Depends on your venue. In the United States, chess runs a bit more lean and mean. A state tournament I participated in had less that one director observing per section. There actually have been cases of collusion to cheat using electronic devices and "observers". All it takes is an observer whispering the moves in a microphone to someone on the other end, and then signals back to the player. You'd only need to do it in critical position. Two or three key moves in a game would be enough to tip the balance in many cases.

It is mathematically proven to be unsolveable within finite time, as the problem is in class NP.

No. No it is not. I am not sure where you got this, but chess is easily solvable in finite time. It is a simple tree search but incredibly massive. My desktop, given enough time and a massive increase in memory, could solve chess. Granted the memory would take up a planet the size of Saturn and the time would run into issues with the heat death of the universe, but this is much different than being "unsolvable within finite time".

I play chess at the tournament level, and have played computer chess since the early 80's when the things were little more than jokes.

You simply cannot internalize the chess computer's algorithms. Believe it or not computers suck at chess and positional understanding. I did an experiment where I played a series of games against Fritz. I gave myself infinite time, sometimes taking 30-40 minutes per moves. I am not a titled player, but am above average for a tournament player. I did very well against Fritz when I had time to make sure my calculations were solid and found many times that Fritz really misevaluated the position. In one case, it insisted that it was up by 1.5 pawns but after 6 or 7 normal humans moves that a "C" player would have found, Fritz realized it was actually slightly worse.

Put a computer in a closed position and it flounders. The computer does not understand a position, it simply has a fairly decent evaluation engine combined with the ability to see every stinking possibility. It does not get tired. It does not have the emotional baggage that sometimes makes chess mistakes.

The computers understanding (evaluation) of a position is perhaps FIDE (ELO) 2000. It's calculation ability is perhaps FIDE 4000. Combine the two, and you get a "person" capable of FIDE 3000 chess. Give a grandmaster more time, and you tip the balance to the positional understanding rather than the raw calculation speed.

So now you get to the point about "internalizing" the chess moves is simply not possible. Put a computer in a complex Queen vs Rook ending, and you will see the computer play moves that a human just would never do. It isn't based on a few principles and understanding them. It is based on a 12 eyed monster seeing every stinking move possible 12-14 plies deep. Computers revolutionized our understanding of this endgame and many more.

Beyond the endgame, there are many points in a chess game where you can tell a computer made a move. First, the move objectively works, but does not fit any type of theme, or normal principle of the game. It isn't simply a good or even great move, it isn't that it just doesn't make sense immediately but rather it doesn't fit any framework of human understanding.

So, yes, I am convinced that you can pick up on cheating based upon a series of moves given the right circumstances.

And no, this is nothing new. Cheating has gone on in chess for decades. Computers have just made it easier for the non-elite to cheat.

Except there is no evolutionary pressure to select for thicker skulls. The injuries cause problems long after the players have ended their career and have had their kids.

Ticker symbol(s). Emerging markets have done well, but I find it hard to believe that your returns have been so consistent for 12 years. 2008 was a real bear market in the emerging markets. Many funds lost 40% plus, even the more conservative ones.

Slight correction. My return was about 12% for the final 10 months of 2012. This is money I had rolled over from a prior employer so had full control for only the 12 months. I was in index funds before that as well, but can't easily roll those gains into the numbers I reported.

In an efficient market, all players have the same information and you cannot gain additional return without additional risk. And the fact is that unless you are an insider, you won't even meet the optimum risk/return frontier. I'm willing to bet if we looked at your returns, you'd be well below the frontier. It is good that you but and hold, but the downside is that it takes a handful of bad picks to bring you down and bring you down hard

My approach guarantees I will make market returns with average risk. Doing as well as the market is not a crime and is quite good. I pay almost no management fees. Even in my non-tax sheltered accounts I pay almost no taxes because nothing is realized. Brokerage fees are similarly insignificant. Anyone who claims to consistently beat those returns is taking additional risk or plain out not understanding their real returns. On top of it all, I spend a whopping zero minutes a week doing research as I really don't have to. And you can research your funds all day long, but you'll never have the insider info a lot of private analysts have and which affect the market.

I am invested in the US mostly, with significant minorities in Europe and Hong Kong. My total return in 2012 was just a shade under 12%. Not bad for a low risk strategy.

In fine Slashdot tradition, let's hear from 52 people telling us that correlation does not imply causation and that only people with brain trauma or predisposed to it play football.