Human Moves/Play vs Engine-Like Moves/Play

Nope,I don't mean they play on a 'handicap' level .. I mean what is it in their programming that makes them differeht in strength ?

.. Is that that they are not able to calculate Every Possible Variation n' come up with d very Best ?

.. I notice the Much Stonger Ones don't Blunder at All n' no player can afford to blunder if u want to beat them ..Their Every Move is 'Pure Perfection' juz like what u explained abt DeepBlue above.

That's somewhat true about Chessmaster, but not with ShredderClassic. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't tell the difference between a 2000 rated shredderclassic and an 2000 rated real player, it plays so naturally.

The chessbase fritz/rybka GUI is fine too, but not as good as SC.

..Yeah , that wld be interesting !

...humans did make the engines to start with, so we definitely have the same capability as them.

Nonsense. Humans made cars to start with, does that mean that we have the capacity to run like a Porsche ?

Computers often sacrifice position and refuse to castle unless completely necessary. They play very cramped in, weird games, but they are almost impossible to beat tactically. The best thing to do against a computer is to play strategically and positionally.

Some even refuses to take ur Queen no matter how many times u offer it to him as an Exchange !

^WIN^

I agree. We don't have the same capacity as machines. And they don't have the same capacity that we have in a million other things. That's it

Someone post very nice games

Actually,Humans made/invented things like Machines/Systems/Computers ,etc ,etc,etc to make their lives easier (as well as lazier)cuz these these Inventions/Systems can work at incredible speeds n' do fantastic things that humans themselves can't possibly do all d Time or can't even do at all .( as in the case of planes flying,etc)

( Chess Computer Programs would be analogous to Automation,I think .)

.. So Humans do get d credit for being d Inventor .. without which these things won't even exist ! .. ( At least they know how to put things together n' make it work for them. )

In this sense,Humans (The Programmers ie ) r d Brains behind Computers n' not vice versa.

I always wonder when I'm playing against a Computer whether it's somewhat like playing with d Programmer cuz he's d one that decided to what extent that program's choices/evaluations of moves can/should be (tho without any human tendencies to blunder,etc unless he has allowed it,ie. )

.. If d computer made silly Moves ( equivalent to a blunder),I always 'laugh' at d Programmer and wonder why he allowed the Computer to do that ( usually on purpose,I think,corresponding with d Computer's intended strengh ) but when the Moves r juz 'perfect',I cannot but marvel at him ( d Programmer)!

.. n' I do wonder if d Programmers r even capable of having a 'Silicon Brain' ??

Hope this makes sense,tho !

.. yeah ,but I was referring to d Higher End/Very Strong Ones here !

Ok,Tnx !

It does make sense, but it's not what we were discussing.

You see, we humans are so smart that we can create things that are more powerful than ourselves in individual subjects.

A car, for example can outrun the fastest of humans, (even though we get the credit for inventing it)

A human can think of a mathematical algorithm that can choose great chess moves through calculation, but he CAN'T solve the algortihm by himself, It would take him centuries per move.

A Grand Master on the other hand, has developed an intuitive "algorithm" based on trial an error, and principles, easier  and using less brute force than a machine. So we could say that chess is one of the areas in which a machine specifically created for that with top-notch human technology and a natural human are evenly matched

(even though computers destroy GMs today, the difference is not so appaling, yet)

Hey,Isn't that exactly what I juz said ?? ... Now u've got me Reaaallllly Puzzled !

Quote SparrowChess2010 :

"A human can think of a mathematical algorithm that can choose great chess moves through calculation, but he CAN'T solve the algortihm by himself, It would take him centuries per move."

..Yeah ,rite but I was juz wondering if d Programmer's so Smart to hv created d Chess Program whether he wld be somewhat able to play Brilliantly too ! ( like at Super GM Level or 'equivalent' to d Computer's,but from a Human standpoint  ie.)

.. guess he won't be capable of possessing a pure 'Silicon' Brain then !

.. I've seen this other Thread abt this related Topic ... ' Is it possibe to Solve Chess ? ' : http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-it-possible-to-solve-chess?page=1 , currently in d Forums too.

.. n' Tnx SparrowChess2010 for ur Comment !

Also, we're not discussing cheating here - this should be confined to a discussion of the differences in style between A.I. and human players.

What I'm seeing from Chess publications, is that many high-level players are using computer analysis to find continuations that they aren't familiar with, and so, as time goes on, human players begin to "borrow" moves from engines.  But you will not see long strings of moves; it will usually be limited to just one well-known particular position or tactical motif.  However, most of the good players here, playing legit games, will deviate considerably from "best play", as determined by computer.  The fact that they are still able to win shows that creativity and psychology are likely to be as important as pure skill when playing against human opponents.  Against a computer player, it becomes a test of computational skill, and often a Master loses because they don't see the continuation.

The bottom line is that human play is fraught with errors, but in games where human vs. human, no one enjoys a special advantage due to the opponent's error unless they actually see the error and move accordingly.

I think this interview with Magnus Carlsen sums it up pretty nicely:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948809,00.html

Tnx and What does A.I. stand for ,Niven42 ? ( Artificial Intelligence ? )

.. n' Tnx for d link to that Interesting Interview with Magnus Carlsen too.

Actually ,a more precise/Complete Title for this Topic would be :

Why don't/can't Humans play like Computers/Engines and What are the differences in their Play/Moves ?

I think I hv made a bit of Conclusion since :

Humans and Computers play differently cuz the latter has at their disposal almost all the lines of variations possible/possible Moves (precise calculation ) and hv the ability to evaluate them extremely well ( according to how they hv been programmed) to come up with the Best Moves/Lines to play ,at speeds far beyond the capability of any Human ..

whereas Humans, although/obviously not capable of matching the Computer's Abilities as described above , can base their choice of Moves from the Lines they know /have learnt whilst evaluating the positions based on their experiences/skills/knowledge ,etc ... and choosing only to consider Lines that they think/feel are best ,whilst eliminating all others, so as not to waste time unecessarily .. in a sense , ..  Play by Intuition ( plus Calculation,to d extent of their ability ie. )!

Hence , .. Computers and Humans are actually playing from a slightly different Level/Angle/Perspective !

.. and unless the Human possesses an Ingenius Silicon Brain ,Chess will almost always remain an Intellectual/Skill Game complete with Blunders,Mistakes n' Inaccuracies n' definitely loads of Fun !

Hope that's rite !

.. but would it be the ideal/Ultimate Achievement ,then, for a Human to strive to play like/beat a Computer or should Humans juz be content with playing other Humans and enjoy the Creativity n' Fun that comes with it ?

what if you find the moves yourself without an engine? 

Anyone who uses "computer assist" and pretends it is them playing pure, is losing to themselves.

If a computer leaves you up an exchange-you'll eventually know that's  its not a blunder.

Whereas w  a human if it is the case, you'll likely be able to grab some more material after the next mistake.