11396 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I would be very interested to see a centaur match between pfren and Prawn, but it looks like it's not going to happen.
To be fair about this, centaur play is extremely greedy of both time and resources. If it's not your thing then it's not your thing.
In tough positions, I leave the engine running for up to twelve hours. Given that I'm using a self-made, overclocked system running at 100%, I have a little horror every time I leave for work. I can't get it out of my head that I might come home to a burnt-down house.
Yeah, I figured that he probably has better things to do than defend humanity. It would take real commitment to be able to win this match, maybe that's why you've had such an easy time with centaur chess on chess.com. Do you participate in ICCF? Surely you'd get some tough opponents there.
I would do it, but I'm sure I'd get destroyed. I don't have very good hardware, software or chess skills.
Do you participate in ICCF? Surely you'd get some tough opponents there.
The best players from this tournament, will shortly be playing in a team event on ICCF:
Interested parties should note that we have a friendly, inclusive and reasonably active group on the site, devoted to advanced chess:
I dont know anything about this. You said you rarely or never overrule the computer, so is it mostly just who has the best hardware/software setup?
I can't imagine, at my level, outguessing the machine except perhaps in those fortress type positions.
The machine is often over-ruled in the opening, databases and cunning transpositions are the order of the day at that stage. Over-ruling a machine that sees 35 ply in a middle-game, is an altogether different kettle of fish.
Sometimes, if I have an idea, I'll show the engine my plan by playing forward a few moves. Then I let it have a long think. After that I hit the "back" button and ask it to reconsider the original position again. Once in a blue moon, human intuition causes the engine to change its mind. Quite a thrill when that happens, I can tell you.
The earlier position earlier with (1. Qe5 fe5 2. Rf1) is a great example.
Houdini 1.5 and Stockfish got stuck on Qd4, and Qa3 which they gave as about equal. Neither considered Qe5.
I also tried analysing after Rf1, This position is not 'obviously' won for white. In fact, after 500, 000, 000 nodes Houdini thought it was still advantageous for Black! It started at White = -5.4 and only slowly came down to White = -0.6.
In the game black played 2. . . Rc8 and resigned 11 moves later, so there was still a lot of play in the position. Houdini hadn't even considered 2. . . Rc8 but instead focused on 2. .. Rc7 and 2. ..a6.
Does anyone know the best moves for each side after 2. Rf1? How many moves is it before the position is obviously resignable?
According to http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1472988&kpage=1
Rc7 is demolished with:
25. Rf1 Rc7 26. Bd1 Re7 27. Bb3 a5 28 a4!!
I don't think that, no matter how much time you give a human, you can eliminate the human factor. Indeed, sometimes you will sit and think about the position for 30 minutes, totally content on every possibility, but you still miss something you never even considered. The problem? You looked a lot, but at the wrong lines. Even with as much time as they need, they will still get nervous; they will still get impatient; they will still experience blindness -- they can still experience anything humans always do in chess.
Okay, I realize that no amount of time will eliminate human error. I'm trying to say that it would minimize it. You don't really think I mean 30 minutes do you? I'm talking about top players spending hours on each move. One way humans are better than computers is that humans are MUCH more efficient, which means that they will find the right lines with less positions considered. Tactical error is almost eliminated in CC, because the human can take almost as much time as needed to be very confident. They will not miss very much.
All of the misconceptions posters have about engines is mind-boggling, not you Elubas, but some of the statements have been ridiculous. Hopefully not too many of mine have been.
Remember that the pre-computer world chess correspondence champ games still have considerable error when checked by computers. No matter the time control humans without computer aid can't push past 70% or so #1 picks by 3000+ computer.
Maybe 1 of those moves the computer didn't pick was actually better. But most of them give away centi pawns that will never be gotten back.
For once, pfren is well off target.
Humans have no chance against good software/good hardware combinations, at any time control.
All this talk that engines don't understand positional play is simply out of date nonsense.
p.s. I'm willing to back up my assertion.... how about this: I play you (pfren) two games of centaur chess, in which we both use computers. I'm a patzer compared to you OTB but suspect my rig (hardware/software) is superior. Bet you don't even come close to winning a game. Not even close.
Do you know the percentage for modern centaurs? How often do they override the computer's #1 pick?
No, but that would be a very interesting statistic.
Because pre-computer match-up are relatively low, (and as pointed out above, the rarity of humans-know-better position is so rare as to make them famous) I just assumed these situations are negligible.
That statement of the rarity of humans-know-better positions doesn't seem right. There aren't very many positions where the average player can beat the engine, but what about the elite players?
Here are some things quoted from a correspondance GM Stephen Ham:
"strong players know from experience when to use their engine(s) and when to use it less, if at all"
"Dont' be influenced by the computer. It's common for my moves to not be top computer selections while my personal evaluations are always trusted over engine evalutions"
"top-level correspondence chess is not about who has the best computer hardware/software ... many chess engine fanatics with the fastest octal hardware and best programs fare poorly in serious correspondence chess."
He seems to think that humans often know what's up better than computers do.
I think there comes a point where the human is just sick of calculating and wants to just play a move; their brain overflows with ideas, to the point where thinking of a certain amount of time might actually hurt their ability to see the big picture. Of course, I could understand putting in 20 minutes, then coming back to it later, but in any case, I think you are overestimating how much humans would benefit from the time given to them in correspondence. I am not a grandmaster, but if you are trying to think of this as a linear pattern, I could try experimenting by thinking for four hours on a move, seeing how that works. Even given that amount of time, I would not necessarily play like a grandmaster -- if my mind burns out at 5 moves ahead, I don't think more time will alleviate that.
If you tried to compensate a blunderous 1000 player by giving them ten hours for each move, do you really think they would stop blundering?
On the same topic, I visited a particular club once or twice a month were all the players were ~200 rating points better than me. Fantastically I would tend to break even most nights... but I was taking the games much more seriously (no blitz), pouring over every move, every possibility I could. It was literally physically tiring and I couldn't bring myself to visit more frequently than I did.
Which is to say, I do think extra time (read taking extra care) can increase your level of play. But like Elubas is saying, the brain only has so much stamina, and eventually extra thinking does no good.
I tend to believe this too. However I wonder how much different a game is when played against a computer from move one.
The famous quote:
I can see the combinations as well as Alekhine, but I cannot get into the same positions.
Seems to suggest that understanding isolated positions doesn't guarantee sucess in a full length game (which makes sense to me).
Norton Jacobi won the Australian CC championship back in about 1979. He said that he was spending approximately 10 hours per move. He had books full of anaysis. His OTB strength would have been 1900~2000. Ahhh... the olden days.
Can't explore a particular game!
by lucavaleriorogledi3 a few minutes ago
Chess Is Garbage, Here Are My Own Openings
by MoonSnow a few minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by Bryan681972 2 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by Marius_Daniel_ 7 minutes ago
From 800 to 1300 in 8 months
by KING_ASSASSIN_0 15 minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by badger_song 16 minutes ago
What makes a great chess book...well, great?
by Raja_Kentut 25 minutes ago
11/7/2013 - Mate in 4
by Esha_Nandhini 27 minutes ago
Kasparov (White) wins
by Warrior200 29 minutes ago
ESCAPE A CABALLO
by RomyGer 32 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!