Actually engines are famously bad at endgames. For example, Houdini would probably consider this a win for white (I need someone who actually has an engine to confirm this):
On the other hand, if an endgame is drawable, chances are that a top-level pro player knows how to draw it. Professional players have pretty much all useful openings and endgames memorized, so letting them have access to texts probably won't help them much.
@Macer:
Your claim is kinda ridiculous and seems to be from times from before engines learnt "pruning" and eventually ran into the "horizon-effect" because even the best brute-force-method couldn't achive the required depth for certain endgames.
However, any modern engine immediately recognizes the draw here and they also kick ass in endgames because they limit the search tree to only the viable options.
In this particular position the engine even brute-forced 100 moves deep in like 10 seconds. (100 moves being the limit because of the 50 move-rule)
Xilmi is right: I put the position through over ten engines before I found one that thought it was a draw. And that engine was one i specially picked because it was old!
Actually engines are famously bad at endgames. For example, Houdini would probably consider this a win for white (I need someone who actually has an engine to confirm this):
On the other hand, if an endgame is drawable, chances are that a top-level pro player knows how to draw it. Professional players have pretty much all useful openings and endgames memorized, so letting them have access to texts probably won't help them much.
Pros routinely lose Rook versus Rook and Bishop endings. The same is true of the theoretical draw of Rook versus Rook + Bishop pawn + Rook pawn ending. With access to an endgame manual they will hold this ending against a computer. Drawable endings will be drawn and it is highly likely that they will win more of the "winnable" endings than the computer will win, particularly in pure King and pawn endings.
On the other hand they will lose Queen and pawn versus Queen and pawn endings they should draw and draw Queen and pawn versus Queen endings they should win.
sloughterchess, There was a time when you said you "don't do endgames."
Have you changed?
@Macer:
Your claim is kinda ridiculous and seems to be from times from before engines learnt "pruning" and eventually ran into the "horizon-effect" because even the best brute-force-method couldn't achive the required depth for certain endgames.
However, any modern engine immediately recognizes the draw here and they also kick ass in endgames because they limit the search tree to only the viable options.
In this particular position the engine even brute-forced 100 moves deep in like 10 seconds. (100 moves being the limit because of the 50 move-rule)
It is very, very refreshing that someone, other than myself, recognizes low IQ people trying to act intellectual and sound smart. It has been said that often one should say nothing and let people think that you are an idiot than open one`s mouth and confirm that fact. High five, guy!
Yes, I was wrong about engines evaluating that endgame as a white win. But that's not my main point. My main point is that the OP's proposed rules won't really help human players much.
@Macer:
Your claim is kinda ridiculous and seems to be from times from before engines learnt "pruning" and eventually ran into the "horizon-effect" because even the best brute-force-method couldn't achive the required depth for certain endgames.
However, any modern engine immediately recognizes the draw here and they also kick ass in endgames because they limit the search tree to only the viable options.
In this particular position the engine even brute-forced 100 moves deep in like 10 seconds. (100 moves being the limit because of the 50 move-rule)
It is very, very refreshing that someone, other than myself, recognizes low IQ people trying to act intellectual and sound smart. It has been said that often one should say nothing and let people think that you are an idiot than open one`s mouth and confirm that fact. High five, guy!
Yes, I was wrong about engines evaluating that endgame as a white win. But that's not my main point. My main point is that the OP's proposed rules won't really help human players much.
In most endeavors which we undertake there is a "cost/benefit" analysis. To test these rules' changes might involve several afternoons by a bunch of pros sipping beer and trying out the rules in practice. If it's a bust and they get crushed by Houdini 3 what have they lost? The beer tastes great and the company turns it into a party lasting a few days.
If they are successful in drawing or defeating Houdini 3 consistently then it is worth millions in terms of sponsorships to test the new rules in public. Any "reasonable" rules changes, not pawn and move, for instance, that result in a successful test will have no difficulty finding sponsors. There would be spectacular press coverage if humans could beat computers at chess.
The downside of the tests are minimal, the upside, potentially spectacular.
fwiw: he is about 1600 uscf
When my game is off which is about 95% of the time I play at Class D level. In this game played at tournament level against Fritz 12 and published in Chess Life, I was clearly better but missed a key attacking concept and lost. I leave it up to the reader to decide if I can play chess when my game is "on".
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nc2 Qa5 8. f3 Be7 9. Ne3 O-O 10. Be2 Bd7 11. O-O Qc5 12. Kh1 h5 13. Nc2 h4 14. Be3 Qh5 15. f4 Qg6 16. Bf3 a6 17. a4 h3 18. Rg1 hxg2+ 19. Rxg2 Qh7 20. Qe2 Rfc8 21. Rag1 g6 22. e5?! (h4 leads to a strong attack according to GM Lev Alburt) dxe5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Bxb7 Bc6 25. Bxc6 Nxc6 26. Rf1 Nd7 27. Ne4 Nce5 28. b3 a5 29. Nd4 Qh4 30. Rf4 Qh7 31. Nb5 f5 32. Ned6 Rc6 33. Nxf5 exf5 34.Rxf5 Re8 35. Nd4 Rf6 36. Rh5 Qf7 37. Rh6 Bf8 38. Rh3 Bc5 39. Qh5 Rf1+ 40. Bg1 Qg7 41. Rhg3 Bxd4
I've also had one of my games published in Inside Chess a magazine for chess professionals.
His hobbies include publishing in theoretical physics and astronomy. This is his first novel.
If I remember correctly, his "theoretical physics" contributions to mankind are in the field of... free enery and perpetual motion.
I sincerely hope to be mistaken.
His hobbies include publishing in theoretical physics and astronomy. This is his first novel.
If I remember correctly, his "theoretical physics" contributions to mankind are in the field of... free enery and perpetual motion.
I sincerely hope to be mistaken.
Actually, it was for an article called, "Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century"
I think this is a very interesting topic. Some of those rules make sense, and it may be a good idea to think about other ones.
A computer uses a "chess library" -- why not let a human? If it's really going to be a matter of human vs computer, then why not let a human use all the resources he can? Let the humans use their sum of knowledge and experience to fight the machine overlords!
The solution is plain and simple: play chess on a bigger board.
This is amply enough to beat engines ( as is the case in Go, where on smaller boards engines are unbeatable but on the biggest board humans still can beat engines ).
For any computing capacity there is a big enough board size which makes tree search unaffordably computationally expensive for engines.
I always thought not allowing "opening books" to be used by the computer would be a fair way to help the human. Although I'm not sure it would be enough anymore.
That is right.
Maybe making the computer play blindfold.
Why isn't this popular yet? It would be awesome!
handicap systems could work i noticed houdini 4 is rated 1000 points higher ELO than carlsen use a sliding scale time handicap ie weaker player by elo gets more time not sure if it would be enough with computer calculating speed maybe a piece handicap or even and i like this best making computer play a line picked by human plalyer with material equality being the only stipulation this really gives an edge to a prepared human
Top professionals believe that Houdini 3 is “unbeatable”. What professionals are overlooking is one simple edict, “He who writes the rules wins.”. Once you realize this the top chess programs can be beaten. For the past 50 years we have written rules favorable to computers. Isn't it time we started writing rules favorable to humans? It is critical, in my opinion, that chess professionals start beating chess programs again. We are losing our humanity byte by byte to computers; if, with simple, fair adjustments of the rules we could defeat computers wouldn't that be worth the effort?
What is critical is that any rules changes seem “reasonable” to the public. If we are to turn chess into the most popular game in the world it is critical that the rules changes seem reasonable to the average person.
Rule change #1---any professional may consult any opening or endgame text; computers have in their memory millions of games and millions of lines of opening theory, and have analyzed simple endgames to completion; this will seem reasonable to the public,
Rule change #2---consultation games will be encouraged so that we can step inside the brains of the top professionals as they discuss strategy and tactics. It is highly unlikely that two pros discussing the position together will miss simple tactics. Verbose, assertive chess athletes will be preferred---this should be highly entertaining. Spectators on their laptops can improve on their strategy and tactics sort of like being able to return a tennis shot by Serena Williams on your laptop!,
Rule change # 3---go back to 120'40 followed by adjournment, the “old” rules, a suggestion of GM Lev Alburt; this will eliminate fatigue errors,
Rule change # 4---eliminate time delay and implement the one second rule. The one second rule holds that computers must take at least one second on every move---or face a severe time penalty. This will permit human professionals to run computers out of time in simple endings. This requirement is reasonable because computers can never make a touch move violation,
Rule change # 5---if all else fails, then limit the size of the computer to the volume of the average human brain that is actively involved in analyzing chess positions. In other words the parts of the brain controlling such things as sight, sound, taste, smell and touch or our hearts beating or lungs breathing are not included.
The most controversial rules change is the one second rule, but think about it. Why should humans be forced to calculate the move, pick up, move or capture a piece or pawn and punch the clock when all a computer has to do is calculate? It will require enormous programming advances for a computer to calculate a move, pick up and move a piece or pawn without touching another piece or pawn and punch the clock all in under one second.
Without the one second rule, human consultation teams with the above rules changes will achieve at least an ELO 3200 rating against computers and a 3300-3500 rating against computers if the one second rule is implemented.
A simple test of my proposal is to have consultation teams in the privacy of their own homes try out the rules changes. If they are successful they can issue a challenge to Houdart, Houdini 3 Pro's father, in a public contest with appropriate stakes---there should be no difficulty finding sponsors. If the humans win it will make news world-wide.
Think of what it would mean if two professionals could analyze together prior to a contest and consult opening books during the contest (World Champion Kasparov lost to Deep Blue because he stepped into an opening trap).
In "simple" drawn endings like Bishop and Rook versus Rook a computer will always draw if its King can get to the "right" corner, a pro will often lose this ending. With access to an endgame book, wouldn't they be far more likely to draw? In a slightly favorable ending won't two pros working together have better winning chances?
If we could reverse the sense of inevitability i.e. once a computer achieves intellectual supremacy in a discipline it will be permanent champion in that discipline, this would permit us to reverse this sense of inevitability and permit us to regain, in a small way, our humanity.
With the right rules changes, the right consultation teams and wins by top professionals, chess has the potential to become the greatest spectator sport of all times and all that implies for the financial futures of even mid-level professionals and teachers!