*well*
How good do chess engines play chess?
Sort:
I am opening a thread to explain my plan.
I put my money on Loek.
loek, i am waiting for your move. you are allowed to take any kinds of help.
Sep 8, 2015
0
#86
I don't have an engine, but I will make use of your information. Show me the thread.
Sep 8, 2015
0
#87
Sep 8, 2015
0
#89
@SmyslovFan: I do not have much time right now. Another possibility next to a lot of games, Earth64 and I can play them one by one, is that he will explain his moves. The level of explanation should level the level of his moves.
Sep 8, 2015
0
#90
If you ever play vote chess, you will see that a 13xx player can explain the moves that an engine recommends and sound plausible.
No. The test of whether someone is using an engine is if he plays like one.
Sep 8, 2015
0
#91
@Pulpofeira: thanks for the trust. 
@Earth64: You have your Kings' Indian. Now the thread please. I am all ears.:-)
Good night, everybody.
Sep 8, 2015
0
#92
That is your fantasy. I always play by my own restricted knowledge. I sometimes analyse using the analysis board and play sometimes master games in the variation I am currently playing - if I can find them - to understand the patterns they see.
And it has changed in a Grünfeld by the way.
Sep 8, 2015
0
#93
Earth64 wrote:
mcris wrote:
Earth64 wrote:
Oneday human will defeat computer, if engines are not aided with book moves.
Stockfish (for example) does not need opening book to defeat the best chess-players. This is a fact. The days when humans won agains computers are well into the past, not into the future. Let's get real.
Play against me with your best engine. I bet you can not win. you may think that i will take help of another engine. To ensure that i am not using engine I will explain my each plan detailed for a single move.
Ok, let's play a Kings Indian. I play d4. You play? (I have send you a game challenge)
nartreb wrote:
Somebody wanted a metaphor. Here's one:
Playing chess is a bit like doing your taxes. The rules are, if not exactly simple, at least completely spelled out. Most people can learn to be basically competent, but most never learn (or want) to get the absolute best performance especially in the more complicated scenarios that sometimes turn up. (Multiple deductions, trusts, non-profits, inheritance,...) Rare, freakish humans are really good at it, but computers are even better - they don't get bored or tired or forgetful or emotional.
Now imagine that the method for calculating certain deductions is so cumbersome that even a computer can't complete it with perfect accuracy within a human lifetime, so if the computer encounters such a situation, it has to just calculate a rough approximation and move on. So computers still have room to improve. There's even a small number of situations where the best humans can find an exact answer even though the computer doesn't know how. But those situations are too rare to matter. If you want the best results available, use a computer.
Not convinced this is an elegant or colourful metaphor. Seriously, like doing your taxes? How exciting.
Pai_Mei wrote:
Not convinced this is an elegant or colourful metaphor. Seriously, like doing your taxes? How exciting.
Maybe you have a better one? No, seriously, I am all ears for a better one because I am not sure it's the best metaphor either.
I guess the difference is that I didn't complain about it while offering nothing of value myself...
Okay, let's imagine the move-tree as a vast battlefield. The chess engine fights like a commander who adheres to a strict set of rules that he will never break, and never makes a mistake. Sometimes his ruleset will yield imperfect decisions, but he's still almost unbeatable since he never misses a single thing.
I know it's bullshit, but at least it makes chess sound a little more exciting than doing your taxes.
Also, where I come from you don't actually have to "have a better idea" for it to be acceptable to criticize. I think that's a ridiculous premise.
Actually it's not even a metaphor, since the description is completely detachable from the battlefield setting.
Sep 9, 2015
0
#98
end the use of chess engines is my opinion , i see no real benefit to chess in them at best a study aid at worst the availability for cheating in online chess , was saddened and shocked to hear carlsen anand india allowed use of chess engine study in rest room of players ,
pour coffee in chess engine sledgehammer chess engines
should not be allowed in chess goes against spirit of game
ANOK1 wrote:
end the use of chess engines is my opinion , i see no real benefit to chess in them at best a study aid at worst the availability for cheating in online chess , was saddened and shocked to hear carlsen anand india allowed use of chess engine study in rest room of players ,
pour coffee in chess engine sledgehammer chess engines
should not be allowed in chess goes against spirit of game
Chess without chess engines? That would be like sports without drugs. What a joke!
I am waiting for that. Let me show the art of thinking.