Computers have an unfair advantage...they don't get tired, they have no feelings about this or that position, plus they have a huge opening book they can consult. They don't fall in love, they don't have sick relatives, etc....
Carlsen has said in an interview that he does not play computers, because it is like playing an idiot who can beat you every time!
This mirrors my own thoughts on the subject.
Computers have an unfair advantage...they don't get tired, they have no feelings about this or that position, plus they have a huge opening book they can consult. They don't fall in love, they don't have sick relatives, etc....
Carlsen has said in an interview that he does not play computers, because it is like playing an idiot who can beat you every time!
This mirrors my own thoughts on the subject.
The emotional aspect has no value when measured on humankind. We have psychopats, they also play chess. They aren't influenced by these emotions. The advantage of the computer is just that. It can compute better than humans. And if everything we know about chess tells me one thing... it will be solved. Sure, it will take some time, but since it's a game with a set of strict rules and white getting the first move... there is a solution to chess. I don't know if it will be 40 moves or 1200 moves, but there is a solution and the computer will tell us. Some day. Hopefully after my life.
I'm not at all clear why a human would be interested in playing against a computer. When I'm out cycling I note that cars seem to pass me easily enough but I don't regard them as competition - just an irritation that I would rather avoid.
Computers are good calculators, that's all. They are NOT chessplayers. By definition, a chessplayer is human.
It would be extremely boring to watch a perfect robot play perfect golf, and not miss one shot, EVER. Who needs to see that?
I agree 100%. Chess and computers and people don't mix. Computers can do A LOT of things better than people, but how often do we perceive this as competition? Not often--because we know we can't do the calculations, especially at those speeds.
Computers are machines. Thus they aren't "playing chess," they're running numbers, and it ends up resembling chess moves. I don't see why the grandmasters even fool with it. It's like taking a bicycle a boating race.
Carlsen has said in an interview that he does not play computers, because it is like playing an idiot who can beat you every time!
"Why must I lose to this idiot every time?"
I really don't understand. You people don't use computers to work out against? It's great for me, to exercise the chess muscles and try my own lines/ideas. I think it's a good thing, to use as a workout tool between tournys. By the way, when you play against, 'people', online I wonder how many of those games the person is using a computer to help them?
He isn't even guaranteed to beat strong grandmasters every time, in fact his recent tournament results aren't all that great so he has no chance against Houdini running on multiple cores. Its actually irrelevant because Houdini 'cheats' by having perfect access to the most up to date opening theory and endgame tablebases while playing, most of us could play better if we were looking things up as we went along.
if you think the opening book isn't a big deal try playing against an engine with the opening book turned off, they play 500 ELO worse.
You may have a point in that. But even if an engine with 3200 ELO is down 500 ELO without opening book it is still a formidable opponent
I thought Houdini 2.0 has a 3300 ELO. If so, even at 500 points lower, it can beat every Chessmaster GM personality on my game(for PS2) and is only about 50 ELO points lower than the King v3.23 engine that powers it, while it plays using opening book.
That makes my head spin considering, the GM personalities beat me convincingly, and the King engine thoroughly thrashes me even worse.
The computers find the best move no matter what. I think Deep Blue calculated 200,000,000 moves a second.
The computers find the best move no matter what. I think Deep Blue calculated 200,000,000 moves a second.
It is funny you say that, because there is quite a different view in the thread called " How engines have changed opening theory". People there seem to think otherwise.
Though I see a few glitches, from time to time, with engines, due to their programming, that is intended to deal with the majority of situations otherwise flawlessly, this minute percentage of time that any human could put them into a position to beat them, Houdini in particular, is most likely so small, that if we were comparing winning percentages, between Houdini and humans vs. super GM's versus other GM's, it would be far superior for Houdini, probably by a 20% or more increase.
I agree that theres no point playing computers if theyre at such a high level and can calculate so far. Surely the fact that human players are not perfect and cannot analyze every variation is what makes playing chess so great
Computers may be able to beat us at chess. But they will never actually enjoy PLAYING the game.
The only way that chess players can play and win against the strongest machines would pretty much force players to be allowed multiple take back moves to try other approaches.
Even using this approach against Chessmaster's King v3.23 engine, this is very, very, difficult. There are so many choices for certain positions, it would take a long time.
very strange conversation this..
it's just as pointless to play humans against the best chess computers at equal time controls as it is to pair off 100 metre sprinters against bullets fired from a gun...
but hey!!!
who am i to talk eh ?
That is a really cool way to look at it. I think some people think of it like playing Russian roulette, but with as many second chances as you can muster.If you keep trying, the right position will arise eventually, to ensure you win.
I really don't understand. You people don't use computers to work out against? It's great for me, to exercise the chess muscles and try my own lines/ideas. I think it's a good thing, to use as a workout tool between tournys. By the way, when you play against, 'people', online I wonder how many of those games the person is using a computer to help them?
I would say probably 50 percent or more of the people who beat me, in online games, use computers for openings. I have noticed after analizing my games that, considering I purposely play odd lines, to attempt to force my opponent out of book moves they know, sooner, to make it matter of their ability to play against mine.I have noticed in games I lose after analysis, I am always the one who deviates from book first.
This tells me that they are using it quite often. I find it funny it is always in the same spot too, about 7 to 9 moves, I normally deviate from a book move.
I suppose it is possible that all of those are players who can memorize really well, but considering my continual use of a few different openings/defenses that aren't as common, to intentionally try to force people to not be able to play book, so it is me against them,l am skeptical.
This also shows me fast, who uses openings from an engine, unless they happen to have all 5 volumes of the chessopedia. I am making a list of people I will refuse to play. I figure these same people are also more likely to use an engine for really critical spots, where decisive tactics are about to take place. I would say they would be more apt to use it anytime, considering they lean on it as a crutch.
carlsen will lose against houdini
but GM Vishy Anand can easily beat houdini
Is this an a beats b, b beats c, c beats a analogy?
Maybe he can draw one game out of very many, but not win...
I would even say and only with white.
No big deal. Petrosian overlooked a mate in 1 against Korchnoi.....
And here you have it, Petrosian overlooking a mate in 1...
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1082288
I am really not interested in humans vs. machines. Machines already dominate much of our lives....computers are good for research in chess; as Anand says, they have made chess more dynamic and opened up new possibilities. But for playing, it is really not fair. Only if you allowed the human to consult an engine while playing against another engine, then I think that would be fair.
Thief 1,
Definitely machines are better than humans at calculating. No doubt. Chess has a mathematical side.
However, I am more interested in the human side, the struggle between two wills, and also in the aesthetic or artistic side of chess. The appreciation of beauty, the feelings of a human soul, the computer has no way of replicating.
Computers have an unfair advantage in that they can consult their own internal database; it is in this respect that the fight is unfair. They also do not have a complex spiritual/emotional/mental/physical system, like humans do. Therefore chessgames between humans and machines are unfair, and of no interest to me.
or closing the positions with engines.... its the best idea to drew with machines.........