Or just watch Petrosian vs. Tal...
Finally the proof! Agro Attack Vs Calm Defence!
Sort:
My thoughts: Endgame tables.
This endgame position is a known loss to theory and of course endgame tablebase (EGTB) will show you it's mate in 31.
Theory will also tell you that the best place for the defender's king is in the opposite corner from the queening square. And an EGTB will confirm black to move can draw if the king is e.g. on g1, h1, g2, or h2.
Some great clashes of style have already been seen in world championship matches. Such as Botvinnik vs Tal (twice) and Kasparov vs Karpov (5 matches, over 100 games). Much better than any silly engine vs engine match.
Hello sir, I would just like to add, if you can show me proof this checkmate in 31 moves, I'd be very happy and grateful.
Also, blacks queen can simply keep on checking whites queen to pull a draw, am I right?
All I clearly see is a draw.
And if humans are so great how come I'd put my money on the chess engine any day?
Mixturelord wrote:
Hello sir, I would just like to add, if you can show me proof this checkmate in 31 moves, I'd be very happy and grateful.
http://www.k4it.de/?topic=egtb&lang=en
Or the book I learned it from:
http://www.amazon.com/Dvoretskys-Endgame-Manual-Mark-Dvoretsky/dp/1936490137
________________
Computers can (and do) make very stupid long term decisions... because they can only think as far as they can calculate. As an easy example, after the first few moves of the Ruy Exchange, a human already understands the king and pawn endgame (everything else being equal) is lost for black due to the doubled pawns crippling black's queenside majority. The endgame may not appear for 50 moves, but a human can think conceptually so it is easy to understand without the need to calculate anything.
As an aside, this gives computers (all modern computers) a very distinct style from humans. So if you want to see a style clash you have to look for human vs human games. The style of engines is so distinct that when, for example, B.Ivanov cheated using only the #1 choice from his engine, it was obvious to all strong players. Although non-players didn't understand this and at first objected to the allegations, after continued cheating (and protests from grandmasters who refused to play in tournaments with him) B.Ivanov was eventually banned by his country's federation.
Mixturelord wrote:
And if humans are so great how come I'd put my money on the chess engine any day?
A computer will beat a human because humans make short term errors. Tactics are the easiest example. So a computer may make 10 stupid moves, but if each move only costs a little, the human can't beat it after losing a pawn. An example of combining humans and computers to cover each other's weakness is ICCF players use engines to help avoid short term mistakes while they try to make their human input useful for long term decisions.
Humans "play chess". Computers mindlessly crunch numbers. Saying that computers are better than humans at chess is like saying that cars are better at humans at racing.
Computers beat humans at chess.
So obviously like your analogy, yes cars do beat humans at racing lol.
Way more power and less time to do it in, I guess...
Unfair advantage to Cars and Computers.
They get way more power in way less time.
[Making them impossible to beat...]
Mixturelord wrote:
[Making them impossible to beat...]
Engines lose to other engines. They can also lose to themselves. They can also lose to humans assisted by weaker engines. Or humans assisted by stronger engines.
No matter how you look at it, they don't find the best moves for every position ;)
Machines only lose to other machines.
As for the whole, lose to humans assisted by weaker engines, I'd doubt that against Houdini 4...
Anyways.
Wonder if man will ever be able to get the crown back, I guess if we had one year to make a move quite possibly lol...
Look how many games both engines played pft.
Houdini looks better to me, they calculate the elo out of the games they have played right?
Houdini has played over 2,000 games
Komodo has not even played over 1,000
| 3 | Houdini 4 64-bit 4CPU | 3261 | +12 | −12 | 59.0% | −57.7 | 50.0% | 2108 | |||
|
|
LOS in the last column stands for "likelihood of superiority." It's how likely the engine is better than the one listed below it.
Not sure the calculations they use, but I'm pretty sure total number of games played has nothing to do with it...
You can also click on an engine to see its head to head stats vs another engine.
Ever wondered what a great attacker versus a great defender grand master match would be like?
Here You Go! ^_^
(Truely amazing to see black pull a draw when white was a whole pawn up)
What are your thoughts on this epic game? ^_^
Let the battle begin!