My post # 18 will clarify what I was meaning.
I see. But nevertheless, the best human chess players are still able to beat engines in correspondence chess, due to their superior strategical insight. In opening play, strategical insight is crucial - that's why chess engines use opening books created by humans.
So I'm afraid that your approach won't create advancements in opening theory - not with the engines available now or in the near future.
I guess will have to agree to disagree on this one. The only proof I have to offer is the last time the best player in the world played a computer, though he was able to win one game out of 6, he was thoroughly humbled. Need I add that both Rybka and Houdini are vastly superior to Deep Blue? Have you noticed that no GM has recently came forward to challenge Houdini to show their flaws? I watched a GM thoroughly demostrate, in a video on youtube,the best ways to try to beat engines. He said 10 years ago you had a chance, but the chance is literally all but gone with the latest advancements. If you wont take my word for it, maybe you will trust a GM's opinion...
He was humbled by the engine, but that would be because the engine chose from the best moves available in its database, moves that were taken from numerous grand masters, and none that it came up with on its own... that and some brilliant programming.
Ofcourse the depth of thought is incredible, the lurking truth here though is that it works on algorithms and not by concieving a strategy. We can however learn and device strategies from the resulting game.
With the advent of quantum computers which are about 5 -10 years away the computers will tweak opening theory and the human opening theory will be an imperfect relic of the past. Even with the computers of today the 2B + K vs. N + K which was thought to be a draw for 300 years has been proven to be a forced win for the 2Bs. Of course the win is some 200 moves in length which is beyond the 50 move rule.
Organic brains are a technology that in many areas has been surpassed by silicon brains. While it is true that the organic brains created the silicon brains, that does not mean that the silicon brains in the form of quantum computers won't be able to create an even more advanced "brain".
I believe that with quantum computers chess will become a solved game, just like checkers became a solved game a few years ago.
Although its possible that super GM's have greater positional sense than chess engines at some point a positional advantage has to be transformed into a material advantage for the stronger side to be able to win and this is where engines come up with amazing defensive resources that enable the defender to cling on. They may not know how to 'play' endgames but they can visualise a drawn position 30 moves down the line from what looks like a certain loss which is beyond the horizon of the greatest human players, this is what makes them hard to beat, not just the sheer calculating ability.
engines have the positional understanding at BEST of an 1500 but there calculation skills are great and with that alone there playing at 2600 tactically tops but there endgame skills are unmatched and boosts them up passed 2900 im surprised people arent talking about more how theyve helped endgames in chess
There's really very little in what you've just said that rings true. If engines had the positional understanding of a 1500 player then we would simply destroy them by using nothing so much as the English opening, but that isn't the case.
They also play far above 2600 tactically, they are actually pretty flawless tactically tbh (over 3000, Houdini is estimated 3300), because what we consider to be tactics are variations that lead, within a small number of moves (1 to 10) to an advantageous end, which is something they see within seconds because they crunch through depth 14 variations within moments.
On endgames some engines struggle to understand them, I seem to remember that a while back Rybka struggled to immediately understand that a king and knight vs. king and rook endgame is (generally) a draw, which is why we've given them egtb's (endgame tablebases). Back in 1990 computers struggled with the positional aspects of the game, but no longer.
nameno1had, doesn't the very fact that white lost the king's pawn opening against itself show up some critical flaws in your "idea"?
Unless you are of the logic that white is LOSING after 1. e4 e5 and it's a forced loss... oh look whatever I'm finished this bullcrap.
Your "idea" is a complete joke, it is only something suitable for the mentality of a 5 year old who was learning chess for the first time, and I highly suspect that this is all just a wind up.... we've had many on chess.com before.
Once again you tell me I am wrong but offer no evidence for how...So I think of your attempted rebuttal as a joke really...
First , it must be noted that human mind is not so easy to be defeated.Think of that, a human , thousand of years ago created a "puzzle"(chess) that the most sophisticated computer programs(engines) can't solve till today
Let's assume that chess will be eventually "solved" by engines.Even when that happens nothing will change.Let's assume an engine finds the perfect line , both sides play the perfect moves and the game ends in win or draw(doesn't matter).
So what?You forget the human factor.When 2 humans play , if one human deviates from the perfect line surrendering a slight edge , the engine may won by a series of 60 perfect moves but another human may not.Because simply humans do mistakes and inaccuracies.We have to assume that the engine can find the win in billion of possible deviations and that a human can remember all of them!!!But in that case we will have humans with the abilities of engines.
When(and if) we ever get there( sounds really scary though) then they must find a way to make chess more "difficult"(more pieces , wider board etc.).If human mind can evolve that much why not chess?After all it is a human creation.
My engine says: 1.Nc3
Ha! Never ;)
Engines play endgames really awfully- actually this is their weakest point currently. They simply try to count many plies without having real evaluation patterns for positions that any decent GM can play pretty flawlessly.
Tablebases endgame material is excluded, of course, but there it is not their strength- they simply read a huge database and pick the move already analysed and suggested.
EVery body seems to have forgotten that engines dont 'think' they just follow an algorithm. anything they do they have to be foretold... the strength of the engine is only as good as the algorithm that some programmer/scientist wrote. Now it can either look up the move from a database or try calculating the score of its next 30 moves... but, theres no plan, no strategy, no personality. it is a very nice learning tool though
If some that consider chess an algorithm are right, then engine's lack of personality and cold-blooded calculation can only be a good thing.
Does anyone know, where engine does its job better against GM. In blitz or in standard 2h game?
Blitz. Generally, the longer the time limits, the better the human results.
I really don't think the time mode for standard chess that is used would matter,humans won't out think a computer. Should it be held against the program as a flaw, because opening book theory was developed before the programs? In other words, do you really think that the programs calculating ability wouldn't allow to figure out what would be the opening book equalivalent?
As far as the Centaurs go, you are really only demonstrating the actions that would be used to make the latest cutting edge program be the best or to discover the best possible lines known. I don't recall saying that the programs weren't flawed. Therefore, it stands to reason that there could be glitches in the programs, that until worked out, otherwise would allow an opportunity for a human to beat one.
Lets put this in perspective though, If I took the best program available and I'll give you your pick, Anand/Carlsen, who ever you want, would you bet all that you have on one game between the human or the engine? I'll take the engine. I would be willing to bet that the engine will win 95% of the time or more against the best GM's. If indeed that is the percentage of the time the best GM's are able to win, wouldn't it be a sound system to use the lines and moves that Houdini suggests as the best? If you won't that tells me that this has something more to do with human pride more than your desire to find the best way to figure out what the strongest openings,moves,etc are...
Food for thought....
If I had to bet on the outcome of a game Kramnik vs. engine with a time limit of 14 days per move, I'd choose Kramnik without hesitation.
I think if he could, he would.
Chess is not an algorithm, its a game. I said chess engines "use" algorithms.
I believe the discussion here is how they have changed the opening theory, not whether they are gonna take over and replace mankind.
It is a good thing, yes cos we can learn from it. Not because it will out-date and replace man.
Chess engines do not "enjoy" playing each other or another chess engine, or a human for that matter. That, for me, makes them boring opponents. And chess being a game is not supposed to be boring.They're good when I can't find a human to play with. Isn't that why you're on this site instead of sticking with a million chess engines available?
[deleted comment did not quote]
I would say blitz, they can both think and move faster. The longer the game goes on, the more it levels the playing field. I don't think it ever gets level. The reason is, even if you gave a GM weeks to try to calculate everything, I believe the human will err before the machine does. Others here see it differently, though there aren't many records to back this up. I will just tell you that when I play certain GM personalities on Chessmaster, I can give em a game for a while. When I try to play the brains behind the engine. It cuts me to pieces fast. Chessmaster isn't as good as Rybka or Houdini. Chessmaster's ELO is about 2850, Houdini 2.0 is like 3300. I just don't see a GM rated 2900 beating Houdini in the standard length of game that the world championship is played at. Some people don't give the computer program enough credit because it can possibly be beaten. If you took the winning percentage of Houdini 2.0 at any time mode against a GM, I bet it is comparable to a super GM or better. We would have our hats off to him, but not the ability of the computer.
I think that though he could calculate everything pretty well so many moves out for a good deal of time, I believe Houdini 2.0 would be able to calculate more moves out and for longer without flaw. This is why I think Kramnik fails eventually with that time mode.
Chess is about more than just calculation though. The longer the time controls, the less important tactics and calculation are (a computer's strength), and the more important strategy is (a human's strength).
I disagree on the basis that the more simplified the game gets, the more it is about shear calculating ability.Computers are programmed to take advantage of end game tables.
Strategy, especially against a computer is more important early on by doing things like, purposely playing a closed game and making sure to try to trade one of your pieces to leave the engines only bishop to be the opposite color of what your pawn chain and king and stationed on. In doing so, if you manage to atleast keep even material, you reduce his bishop to about the value of a pawn.
Also I have been told that computers aren't sometimes programmed to deal well with pawn storms that attack a castled king on his own side. I have personally tested both of these theories against my Chessmaster. I did pretty well against GM Bogoljobow's personality, using the first of the two strategies I mentioned, but I still get cut to pieces by the engine's brains itself, no matter what I try. Rybka and Houdini are superior to Chessmaster's engine.