Carlsen has said that he would lose to a smartphone.
Ponziani: Impractical in non-computer Correspondence Chess?
Sort:
Dec 28, 2015
0
#343
Try downloading Shredder or stockfish for your phone, then play that at its highest level.
Heh. Man, you do some fancy footwork.
Human hands (beings) have created....Period.
There isn't any software at the moment that could ever conceive such concepts which is my point. Human beings need to approximate positional evaluations for them.
Mimics, imitates but never emulate. Another point I made.
Do I really need to know computers to opine on this subject? Is this some kind of pissing contest to you?
Wow. Humans playing engines for money? Yeah, if it was worth their while. Of course, the notion that Humans would lose to a popular engine (even having a weaker engine assist to boot) just to increase it's stock (heh) is certainly inconceivable to a realist like you, huh? No no no. I'm sure Nakaz put every effort to win. Studied it's tendencies, prepared Openings. Yeah, I'm sure you can find something on that. I await.
You move.
Smart phone app could beat GMs?
Puleez man. Get real.
Dec 28, 2015
0
#347
Najdorf, you really are showing your ignorance. Today, smart phones have multiprocessor capabilities. You can buy a quad core smart phone, which is capable of running stockfish 6 (rated at 3300+ by CCRL) and other top engines.
So, feel free to repeat yourself again. You'll still be wrong.
shkrelis_nemesis wrote:
btickler wrote:
In 2015, any Smartphone version of a good engine will mop the floor with any human chessplayer in the world.
Ridiculous. These engines have 3300+ ratings only on much stronger processors than what you get on your phone. I'm only a 1700 player and I occasionally draw Droidfish on my phone.
I guarantee you that you will never/have never drawn Droidfish on its highest level. If you think you have, then you're using the wrong settings.
najdorf96 wrote:
Do I really need to know computers to opine on this subject?
Yes, clearly you do when you are claiming that super GMs can beat engines if they just try hard enough ;)...your argument is like some peasant from feudal England claiming that a crossbowman can beat a modern tank because crossbow bolts pierce knight armor. You haven't got the faintest clue what you are talking about.
Carlesn has said a few years back that he does not like playing against an engine.
It’s like playing someone who is extremely stupid but who beats you anyway.
SF obviously I hadn't seen your posts earlier.
My comment (and sarcasm) was directed towards btickler.
Although I do stand corrected as it is.
One thing though, I am ignorant on a lot of things but was that snide remark you'd made at the end really necessary?
Really btickler? Is my opinion soo far fetched as to use such an extreme analogy? Wow. I guess insulting me is your way of debating. I guess a software engineer who doesn't play Chess or didn't design any engines can speak to this subject more than I, eh? Cool. That's your opinion and not factual mind you. You're entitled to it as much as anyone commenting here.
I like that quote IM phren. Heh.
Thank you for that s.nemesis.
+1
So, you're telling us that you can't draw Stockfish. The default settings are low so that you don't feel like you are getting completely massacred every time you play. When someone says "I can draw player X", then that clearly implies that that means on equal terms...unless specified otherwise.
As I said, play Stockfish at 25-30 ply/move. Better yet, enter yourself into the next TCEC championship and draw all the engines ;).
At 2 seconds/move, you probably aren't going past 10-15 ply. If your argument is that a smartphone playing at 2 seconds/move can be beaten by a GM taking his sweet time, then you might as well argue that you can beat Carlsen yourself if he gets 15 seconds total for a game and you get as long as you want to think ;).
What is TCEC?
thanks!
Dec 31, 2015
0
#359
Please take this conversation to an appropriately title forum. Thanks.
Happy New Year!
Apologies kanti. I'm guessing a certain btickler used my counter-argument (which did go the long way in explanation) to hice, namely that I don't believe Ponziani Power's analysis or their play as a group was the result of strictly engine use and not due to the opening's practical use, to attack me. Like as if I, a chessplayer from Hawaii, of Asian descent, admittedly not as up on trends (in comparison to him) could ever comment intelligently on this subject. Or could be he was just bored. I like to think the latter because I believe everyone's opinion matters. Regardless if you vehemently think you're "right", and everyone else are idiots. Embed some pointless links or out of context superficial regurgitated "facts". Whew.
Anyways, after doing some of my own analysis (humble.as it maybe in present company) I will definitely comeback to point of order. Again, sorry.
Heh. Space Invaders.
I think your sense of reality is abit skewed, btickler.
In my reality, I imagine Carlsen & many other Super GM's use those very same engines in their prep. Don't you think it's really inconceivable that they haven't beaten them in practice? Or draw? Puleez man.
I don't have the inclination to explain to you in entirety that Abstract Concepts totally make up every Human chessplayer's game. I'll just give a brief synopsis.
Positional play is the accumulation of small advantages in Force, Pawn structure, Time, Space, Mobility.
Tactics deal with undefended pieces, insufficiently defended pieces or the King, using pins, forks, discovered attacks, double attacks usually in combination. Also known as Combinational play.
A Mating attack is absolute. Concrete calculation is needed.
But creating a blockade, overprotecting a square, control of lines (diagonal, ranks, files), prophylaxis, light & dark square play are Abstract concepts. Ideas. Strategies realised through tactics, positional play using calculation.
Is any software able to conceive such a thing? I don't need to read up on any such article to give an opinion about this. There aren't any. Period.
Your move.
You really don't know anything about computers, do you? Software doesn't have to "conceive" anything on this front. Human beings have created point valuations for all the positional factors you listed. Adding up those valuations, along with many others you did not mention, allow the engines to run circles around super GMs in tactical play and to also best them in positional play. A super GM will not be able to calculate that diagonal X will be more important than file Y 20+ moves down the line, but the engines can.
If any super GM could beat their practice engines on a regular basis, then they would play matches vs. engines for publicity...but nobody has dared do this (play a straight up match vs. a top engine) since Deep Fritz thrashed Kramnik in 2006(!) running on a desktop PC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93computer_chess_matches#Kramnik_.E2.80.93_Deep_Fritz_.282006.29
Engines have gotten much better since then, too. Nakamura played a handicapped match against Stockfish, being allowed to use engine assistance to help him (a weaker engine, rated 200 points below Stockfish...though that weaker engine is still rated over 200 points higher than Nakamura).
http://www.chess.com/news/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-3634
He lost. It was not that close, even with the weaker engine's assistance.
In 2015, any Smartphone version of a good engine will mop the floor with any human chessplayer in the world.
These are facts...so, if you have none to produce yourself, then your conjecture and assumptions are worthless.