Did Hikaru Nakamura ruin his game by playing too much blitz?
Sort:
Amplebeee
Mar 21, 2017
0
#41
nakamura likes openings, if he perfered the endgame, hed play standard games.
zac_howland wrote:
StupidGM wrote:
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
Fast games = too many mistakes to enjoy analyzing, reporting or discussing them.
In an era where chess is solved, ...
You can stop right there. If you think chess is solved, you are demonstrating your clear ignorance.
But chess IS solved. Not solved as in there is one and only one way to play the game and win, or one solution, but solved in that you can play an opponent and never, ever win. A computer will beat you 100% of the time at the problem of chess. That is a solved problem.
zac_howland wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
zac_howland wrote:
StupidGM wrote:
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
Fast games = too many mistakes to enjoy analyzing, reporting or discussing them.
In an era where chess is solved, ...
You can stop right there. If you think chess is solved, you are demonstrating your clear ignorance.
But chess IS solved. Not solved as in there is one and only one way to play the game and win, or one solution, but solved in that you can play an opponent and never, ever win. A computer will beat you 100% of the time at the problem of chess. That is a solved problem.
That is not the definition of a solved game. A game is solved when
1) You can force a win by proper play, always.
2) Proper play always results in a draw.
To give you an example: Checkers (8x8 - not 10x10) is weakly solved (meaning if both players play perfectly from start to finish, the result is a draw and that can be proven).
Chess is NOT solved (and likely never will be). It is assumed that proper play always leads to a draw, but that is not proven. In fact, to be more specific: it is "partially solved" - meaning the endgame tablebases show wins and draws for limited remaining pieces on the board. There is nothing that proves a win or a draw from the start of the game.
Engines are purely tactical beasts. There is an article just a week or so ago that shows a position that an engine (even the strongest ones) gets wrong, even after thinking about it for hours, but a human gets correct instantly.
I think that we are talking about two different things. I am talking about a solved problem, you are talking about a solved game. I agree a game cannot be solved, because it's a game. Monopoly and poker and solitaire and yahtzee will never be solved. Besides the point I didnt know a solved game even had your definition. But the problem of chess is solved, and it will likely be solved even more definitively as time goes by. I agree that there are probably positions a human can beat a computer. But since the problem of chess starts at move 1. can a human beat a computer at that problem? No. The problem is solved. There is always a forced win by one side (your definition). And the forced win will likely be even more dramatic as time goes by.
Nakamura played far too much blitz chess and is now just a shadow of his former self, banished to a life of shameless red bull advertisements.
Zac
I will assume everything you said is true. It changes nothing. When people talk about chess being "solved" they are talking about a problem, not a game. A game cannot be solved, but a problem can. You will never ever beat the best computers at chess. Ever. It has solved the problem of playing against you. It has not solved the game of playing against you because part of the game, for you, may be to not win. The game may be to play fast, lose as many pieces as possible, learn, have fun, etc. Thats what makes a game. But the computer doesn't care about the game, it only cares about the problem, which is to win (or not lose). And that is solved. It will not lose 100% of the time. As I said, this is likely to even be more definitive over time since even now in their relative infancy the best computers are about 600 points better than the best human. Imagine 200 years from now what the margin of superiority will be. 200 years from now a 5000 rated computer playing against another 5000 rated computer may figure out a single solution for chess, but until then, the problem of finding a solution for winning (or not losing) against you are anyone else is solved.
Zac,
I should have looked at the sources you mentioned before I responded. That is my fault. The video that you mentioned of GM Dlugy defeating a computer shows that it could be done. The problem is that he won two of 220 games, 10 years ago. 10 years ago, I'll bet there were a HUNDRED people who could beat the best computers. I doubt that's the case today, or ever again going forward.
fischer would have beaten deep blue!
fewlio wrote:
Faster time controls is the future. This years WCC was DECIDED by faster time controls as the longer time controls was a draw. That should tell everyone everything they need to know.
Yes as the games are becoming too drawish at the top level of this game the future competition will all about who can think better and faster. A six hours board game is great for players but not for average spectators rapid and blitz will keep this game alive and funny.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.