It's just too difficult.
Could Carlsen beat engine
Sort:
There are too much fools around.
Mar 10, 2015
0
#24
Maybe he could draw a match with no opening book or EGTB. And a long time control. LONG.
I would seriously like to see this happen, say a 6 game match or something. Like Kasparov did against Deep Blue. I'd guess it'd finish 1-0 or 2-0 to the computer - I couldn't see Carlsen actually winning a game.
theturk1234 wrote:
Maybe he could draw a match with no opening book or EGTB. And a long time control. LONG.
you mean game? (match means several games) IMO any top GM with very good form can't score more than 25% against SF6 in 40/120.
When we watch Carlsen playing and we have an engine to kibitz and let us know when anyone made a mistake or inaccurate move (pretty much like it was a coach for Carlsen), does this alone not say enough, that humans are no match for comps, not even Carlsen?
@Debistro, that's a circular argument. You're saying that a computer is a valid judge of whether a computer is playing better than a human.
Of course he can beat weak computers. But against the top engines he has no chance. Carlsen said something like playing against the computer is like playing against an idiot except that the idiot always wins.
we know some positions computer evaluate wrongly, so without opening book it could be in some trouble against a top GM
Also one should remember the past matches between men and machine...and the superior hardware/algorithms we have today...
madhacker wrote:
Not really, I see all the GMs refer to, check and compare their lines with the engine during post match interviews after their games are over, to see if they missed out on anything. That is acknowledgement enough that they defer to their silicon overlords.
@Debistro, that's a circular argument. You're saying that a computer is a valid judge of whether a computer is playing better than a human.
Of course the engines are stronger than the GMs, that's obvious. But my point is that if you have a human of any strength playing an engine of any strength, then ask the engine whose moves it thought were more accurate, then of course it will always say its own moves are more accurate, otherwise it wouldn't have made them in the first place.
Yes! He's the best player in the history of the world and machines don't know how to plan. He can steer the game into channels where human thinking trumps brute force calculation. While he can't calculate nearly as fast a an engine engines have a horizon effect of 20 moves whereas Carlsen can see deeper than that, resulting in a more accurate assessment.
TheGreatOogieBoogie írta:
Yes! He's the best player in the history of the world and machines don't know how to plan. He can steer the game into channels where human thinking trumps brute force calculation. While he can't calculate nearly as fast a an engine engines have a horizon effect of 20 moves whereas Carlsen can see deeper than that, resulting in a more accurate assessment.
Not trying to diss the guy, but how on Earth could Carlsen see deeper than an engine?
I understand the difference between the human thinking and pure engine, but there's no human that can see 20 moves deep.
I understand the analogy, but I still think it's inaccurate.
A computer can store million times more data, can calculate deeper and faster, and also lacks any kind of psychological disadvantage.
The only times I've seen humans beating engines is when they use 'anti-engine' methods and create weird lines that a computer simply chooses not to follow.
Out of interest is it possible to calculate the maximum rating possible for either fide or some other system of ratings?
I'm sure you could do it for a game of 1 king and 1 queen each, so it should be extendable for a normal game right? Or would you have to work it out empirically by making a perfect engine first?
LegendLength írta:
Out of interest is it possible to calculate the maximum rating possible for either fide or some other system of ratings?
I'm sure you could do it for a game of 1 king and 1 queen each, so it should be extendable for a normal game right? Or would you have to work it out empirically by making a perfect engine first?
I'm sure there is no maximum rating.
Ratings will go on climbing higher and higher until someone works out a better rating system.
No upper tier.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
TheGreatOogieBoogie írta:
Yes! He's the best player in the history of the world and machines don't know how to plan. He can steer the game into channels where human thinking trumps brute force calculation. While he can't calculate nearly as fast a an engine engines have a horizon effect of 20 moves whereas Carlsen can see deeper than that, resulting in a more accurate assessment.
Not trying to diss the guy, but how on Earth could Carlsen see deeper than an engine?
I understand the difference between the human thinking and pure engine, but there's no human that can see 20 moves deep.
Alekhine sometimes looked 30 moves ahead as shown sometimes in his best games collection.
Both engines are above 3300. Carlsen is below 2900.
This is incorrect, engine ratings are not FIDE ratings therefore they are not comparable.
Having said that, its unlikely that a human player can defeat a strong engine in a classical game. However in a correspondence game I expect most GMs could defeat an engine.
I don't buy into any entity having a 3000+ rating. We've seen Fischer play almost perfect at 2785 and Kasparov play almost perfect at 2851. Ratings naturally inflate. In reality, anything playing at a 3000 level couldn't lose. All opponents could only hope to draw.
Firstly the idea than Fischer or Kasparov rating is comparable to modern ratings is mistaken. People have to remember that ELO DOES NOT MEASURE PLAYING STRENGTH, only performance against a particular pool.
Having said that, it seems highly unlikely that a modern engine running on decent hardware would have an elo much below 3000 if it was entered in classical tournaments. They're clearly significantly stronger than human players in this format. How far above that they could go is questionable since alot of human players would just be playing for draws and this would restrict an engines rating once it was far enough ahead of its opponents.
We can dream about situations where strong players made a real effort to find ways to beat engines but tbh, I don't think any strong players are really interested anymore - in fact no one has really cared about human vs engine chess since Deep Blue since that's the last time that humans were really competitive.