I am programmer, so for me when a player play against a computer, I would like to call it, human player vs combinations of human knowlegde from many years of programming(there are chess gm programmers).
What people never realise is what a computer use are human knowledge, algorithms are human knowledge..
Well, the mind is in fact a computer. It is not that outrageous to copy its abilities.
So when Krammnik is playing against a computer he is really playing against hundred minds of human(stored) that never tires..
I saw an interview with Kasparov where he said the question isn't if a human can beat a computer every time, but whether or not a human can still beat a computer. He said that a human is distracted by life and can get tired, but the machine basically starts fresh at every move and has no worries or concerns.
GM's also have a very good storage of games in their mind. The only difference is that the machine is superior.
But it does not change the fact that chess engines are human knowledge.
It's not "human knowledge."
Man don't argue I am a programmer, algorithms are human knowlegde. Chess engine is composed of algorithms.
To give you a simple example,why do you think you can't not login in a web site, if you use your wrong password, because of the human logic(programming codes) that is stored in a web page...
Things like this are what runs a chess engine(program codes), and this is a human knowledge..
function MTDF(root : node_type; f : integer; d : integer) : integer;
g
f
upperbound
lowerbound
repeat
if
g
lowerbound
then
beta
g
else beta
g
g
root
beta
beta, d
if
g
beta
then
upperbound
g
else
lowerbound
g
until
lowerbound
upperbound
return
g
I think saying they don't have human knowledge is wrong. They don't have an imagination.
Well, the mind is in fact a computer. It is not that outrageous to copy its abilities.
The brain of a house fly is much more complex than a supercomputer. Computers are not doing the same function as human brains.
...Not yet! Although it would probably take a few billion years.
Well, the mind is in fact a computer. It is not that outrageous to copy its abilities.
The brain of a house fly is much more complex than a supercomputer. Computers are not doing the same function as human brains.
They will be in a few years. The brain is just a machine. It won't be long before it's copied.
I saw an interview with Kasparov where he said the question isn't if a human can beat a computer every time, but whether or not a human can still beat a computer. He said that a human is distracted by life and can get tired, but the machine basically starts fresh at every move and has no worries or concerns.
Yes. That is trouble with life - it seems to take so much of our time!
Yes. That is trouble with life - it seems to take so much of our time!
It would be better if we had never been born at all.
Back to topic:
Consider this: In the match Karpov-Kasparov, Kasparovblundered with gxh4? because he thought after Karpov recaptured, he would set up a fortress. Wrong!
Karpov played Ng2!!
When you put this position on Rybka, it suggests a plain recapture, rather than Karpovs move. Why? Because with Karpovs move, it opens the position, and open positions are usually to the favour of bishops. To us, its obvious that White will get his pawn back and make progress on the kingside, and maybe even win. Its all intuition. But a computer has to calculate it, which is obviously impossible. There are some positions which computers just don't get.
People never consider that perhaps we are wrong.
When a computer claims that a position is drawn we tend to fight it out and learn for ourselves mainly out of arrogance or pride, but a computer is a pure thinking machine.
A win is a win and a loss is a loss, regardless of our "intuitution."
Chess is a board game, so it's perfectly designed for machines and can be broken down into a simple case of A, B, or C.
Chess is a board game, so it's perfectly designed for machines and can be broken down into a simple case of A, B, or C.
Computers aren't good at chess because it's a board game. There are plenty of board games where humans beat computers. I know because I play one of these games regularly, and I can beat the best engines at slow time controls almost every time. I'm not quite good enough to consistently beat them in blitz though.
Some of the posts here show excellent evidence based reasoning, and great skill in convincing a crowd. Here is a summary of the evidence regarding human versus computer chess games so far.
1) Estimated ELO-ratings: Many available, computers outdo top humans by a margin of about 500
2) Blitz games: many example games available, computers win hands down.
3) Normal time control: many example games available, computers win hands down.
4) Correspondence chess: no examples available, since all top players rely on computers.
The conclusion: "Humans would obviously win a correspondence match. It is just common sense. If you disagree, you are stupid."
Brilliant!
I am programmer, so for me when a player play against a computer, I would like to call it, human player vs combinations of human knowlegde from many years of programming(there are chess gm programmers).
What people never realise is what a computer use are human knowledge, algorithms are human knowledge..Houdini's chess engine is a combination and result in the development in other chess engine( chess engine developed by chess masters programmers).