Computer analysis is always a bit flawed. What if it considers a fianchettoed bishop an inaccuracy of an opening, but then it helps forming a mating net in the endgame?
Alex Alekhine vs Paul Morphy
Sort:
To kindasponey: Yes, I agree with you. Computers know nothing about Father Christmas, Peter Pan and the like. They don't even know they are playing chess. They just win every single game when not against another computer.
To GnrFrtzl: Yes, sure, you may criticise computer analysis, specially after you manage to win a single game against an average chess programme running on a decent computer.
JogoReal wrote:
To kindasponey: Yes, I agree with you. Computers know nothing about Father Christmas, Peter Pan and the like. They don't even know they are playing chess. They just win every single game when not against another computer.
To GnrFrtzl: Yes, sure, you may criticise computer analysis, specially after you manage to win a single game against an average chess programme running on a decent computer.
i'm not criticising any chess engines, I'm just saying that computer analysis is a bit flawed, which it is.
Most of them can not understand long-term strategic ideas, just like my example: a fianchettoed bishop. The best engine in the world would think for some reason that's an inaccuracy in a certain position it is played, but if you take a look at the whole picture, it's really not.
I didn't know computers have trouble with fiancheto, do they? Can you come with an example?
JogoReal wrote:
... Computers ... win every single game when not against another computer.
Is there any reason to believe that this ability would enable a machine to know things like what would happen if Morphy travelled through time and was exposed to modern chess ideas?
Dec 19, 2016
0
#29
You just have to enter a positional position and let him destroy his own position.
JogoReal wrote:
I didn't know computers have trouble with fiancheto, do they? Can you come with an example?
Come the hell on, it was just an example.
Try to understand what I'm saying instead of picking on my words.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
JogoReal wrote:
I didn't know computers have trouble with fiancheto, do they? Can you come with an example?
Come the hell on, it was just an example.
Try to understand what I'm saying instead of picking on my words.
Kind of easy to notice Jogo Real....
Paul Morphy I believe was never a world champion, but Alex Alekhine was a world champion LATER than Morphy so they had better ideas than in Morphy's time. So Alekhine would win based on my calculations.
AlexandreTF wrote:
Morphy, obviously
how
VincentRoberts wrote:
AlexandreTF wrote:
Alekhine, obviously
how
Very simply
SonOfThunder2 wrote:
VincentRoberts wrote:
AlexandreTF wrote:
Alekhine, obviously
how
Very simply
lol
BronsteinPawn wrote:
I could beat Morphy with my eyes closed.
not true.
BronsteinPawn wrote:
I could beat Morphy with my eyes closed.
Morphy could probably beat me with his eyes closed.
BronsteinPawn wrote:
I could beat Morphy with my eyes closed.
Expecting Morphy to lose on time? What about after the zombie apocalypse?
What reason is there to believe that number crunching will enable a machine to know things like what would happen if Morphy travelled through time and was exposed to modern chess ideas?