Dead Man's Chess

Malerin

Banned
M
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
3,341
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?
 
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 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.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

"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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wolfman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!"?
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Do you or do you not believe that people are capable of lying just for the hell of it?
 
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.
 
rjh01 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...


You're right, a chess playing ghost is clearly much more plausible. :rolleyes:
 
Civilized Worm said:
You're right, a chess playing ghost is clearly much more plausible. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
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?".
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Ashles said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Absent a financial or publicity motive
Click to expand...


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?".
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Civilized Worm said:
When there are two or more competing theories, go with the one that makes the least assumptions.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PingOfPong said:
There must have been some publicity because you know about it.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Malerin said:
Fairly simply? The "mundane reasons" pose a lot of questions.
Click to expand...
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".
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ashles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Okay then.
Click to expand...

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=9A07E3DE143CF93BA35755C0A961958260

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.
 
JoeEllison said:
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.
Click to expand...

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? ;)
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Malerin 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Malerin said:
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? ;)
Click to expand...

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

Leon
 
Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?)
 
Malerin said:
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? ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Malerin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nope. Plenty of hoaxes are done simply for the love of playing a trick. Crop circles would be an obvious example.
 
Malerin said:
Did any of you know about it?
Click to expand...


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


Malerin said:
Korochnoi is the patsy in all this! Are you now assuming Korochnoi is one the of conspiriators?
Click to expand...


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.


Malerin said:
What kind of "street cred" would beating a ghost give him in the world of high-level tournament chess?
Click to expand...


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

Malerin said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.

Malerin said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.


Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.

Malerin said:
Sure, You could throw out plenty of possibilities. Are any of them reasonable to believe?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Ashles said:
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?"
Click to expand...

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?" :)

Ashles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
quarky said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom