@Lasarus33,
That is an intriguing idea about letting the engines play without an opening book. I would be interested to hear if anyone has any experience with this. I can only think it would be an advantage to the computer and a handicap to the human, but I am not an engine expert.
FIY I am playing centaur chess on LSS, and I'm rated around 2400, mainly because I use a very old Core2Duo box which hardly achieves 2,000 kilonodes per second (an average modern computer goes over 5,000), and I never take the engine's suggestions seriously. The engine is only used for blunderproofing- all planning in the game is done with the engine shut down.
yes, you are (apart from giving away your conception of the endgame - if you were a boss of endgame - like say IM Pfren or coach hicetnunc - you wouldn't even bother to submit to the engine).
Input that move, follow white's move (of course KxR), then wait for it to reach at least 20+ ply - if your computer has sufficient RAM the eval will jump to more than -3 (winning for black, of course). Give some more moves, and the eval will go on increasing rapidly.
Why, thank you for this very flattering comparison, but IM pfren is way better than I am, especially in endgames 
This is only a conversation if you misunderstand what engines are / how they work. Obviously they don't give the best move or evaluation for every position. It's just a tool with very specific parameters. If you just blindly follow it, it's useless, you might as well not have an chess engine.
So yes, sometimes they are very wrong, but that shoudln't matter if you use it properly e.g. if you have developed your own opinions about the position first.
@danixmt
Have you played over the "ICC Fischer" games? They are highly entertaining! (And are 11 years old) The games GM Short played were not saved but here are the games that are available:
http://www.chessbase.com/games/iccf1.htm
I think it would be an interesting experiment... not too sure what it would prove (if anything).
Kasparov's style versus Deep Blue weren't the greatest match.
I'd like to see Karpov, Carlsen, Capablanca, Lasker or Petrosian take
a shot.
Three of those dudes are dead and one of them just about retired.
I suspect you are out of your depth.
But I agree, since computers don't have imaginations and creativity and just uses calculations, that's why there are still human-only moves up to now even when houdini was created, so we may never be able to know if a human can beat a supercomputer since most great players in modern time based their moves to computer programs and not on what only the human brain has.
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.
You're saying that computers aren't good at board games? Have you forgotten checkers???
No, that's not what I'm saying. Re-reading my comment I see that the first sentence is very ambiguous. I was just trying to say that Yereslov's assertion that board games are perfectly designed for computers is false. Chess is an example of a game where computers are significantly better than humans, but there are plenty of other examples where this is not the case.
Again, all I meant was that the computers' strength at chess is not because of the fact that chess is a board game.
Oh, the great master speaks!
My reply to you is the same. I don't know what your point is with your sarcasm. If you doubt any of my statements that you quoted even now knowing what I meant to say, then I can easily provide evidence.
Let's not forget IM pfren is speaking in the hypothetical and as such anything he claims is utterly meaningless. Saying that Houdini is easy to beat in a correspondence game or that Kramnik could beat it hands down is just that: words. Does he post any games of his beating Houdini (in any way, correspondence or otherwise)? No. Does he provide any evidence that Houdini has been beaten in correspondence games by anybody? No. He just claims these things because he wants them to be true. But wishing does not create truth. Anybody who knows anything about chess, knows, that chess engines have, by far, surpassed even the strongest GM's. It's over, folks. Machines are better at chess than humans. Live with it.
Actually it depends on how you use the word better? If you want to watch a game between Capablanca vs. Karpov or computer vs. coomputer, what would you choose? I honestly would choose the creative games of chess geniuses, yes machines win against us hands down but that doesn't mean they play BETTER chess.
Most probably because it's a centaur game so creativity is still present, and YES better doesn't mean stronger, a game can be better than another game even if the players are not as strong, if you get my point. Yes I do accept now(since I felt degraded knowing just a computer can best me, a human, at my FULLEST potential) that chess engines are STRONGER than humans now(unless somehow we humans magically evolved our minds xD) but I believe we are still BETTER at making AWESOME games 
Pardon?
You can download Houdini 3 for free off the pirated commercial chess enignes forum.
You can, but I urge you to examine your conscience first (if you have one).
Sorry I am just a chess player !.
Can I just make one fact clear.The computers ( any computer for that matter (Toms 2Gb to NASA to the biggest super computer ) CAN NOT beat the human intelligece. This is a solid fact. The only thing they can beat is speed in doinig a calculation which again they are told to do by our ( human ) intelligence.
fburton, maybe you can delete the link too - no need to advertise unlawful behaviour...
fburton, maybe you can delete the link too - no need to advertise unlawful behaviour...
Done. Thanks for pointing that out.
Sorry I am just a chess player !.
Can I just make one fact clear.The computers ( any computer for that matter (Toms 2Gb to NASA to the biggest super computer ) CAN NOT beat the human intelligece. This is a solid fact. The only thing they can beat is speed in doinig a calculation which again they are told to do by our ( human ) intelligence.
Smarter does not mean better at chess. No one here thinks that computers can actually think.
Sorry I am just a chess player !.
Can I just make one fact clear.The computers ( any computer for that matter (Toms 2Gb to NASA to the biggest super computer ) CAN NOT beat the human intelligece. This is a solid fact. The only thing they can beat is speed in doinig a calculation which again they are told to do by our ( human ) intelligence.
Does that even matter? Houdini would win. Question answered. If each side gets 3 days, Houdini gets 3 days straight to think without taking any breaks, with its speed marginally faster as time goes on.
And Pfren is just an engine hater.
Sorry I am just a chess player !.
Can I just make one fact clear.The computers ( any computer for that matter (Toms 2Gb to NASA to the biggest super computer ) CAN NOT beat the human intelligece. This is a solid fact. The only thing they can beat is speed in doinig a calculation which again they are told to do by our ( human ) intelligence.
That argument has the solidity of wet cardboard.
Actually, I think docjdan is correct on this. We don't have computers coming close to putting out art that can compare to the Mona Lisa, David, Hamlet or Beethoven's 9th. The problem is that this doesn't apply so much to chess computers. In chess certain moves work or don't work depending on the position, and this formula doesn't change over time provided that the rules remain the same, but in the arts this static, extremely processed approach doesn't work. For example, terrible sounds that have no bassis to go together, which lack any form of logical explanation from music theory, can combine to create a great work of music.
Actually, I think docjdan is correct on this. We don't have computers coming close to putting out art that can compare to the Mona Lisa, David, Hamlet or Beethoven's 9th. The problem is that this doesn't apply so much to chess computers. In chess certain moves work or don't work depending on the position, and this formula doesn't change over time provided that the rules remain the same, but in the arts this static, extremely processed approach doesn't work. For example, terrible sounds that have no bassis to go together, which lack any form of logical explanation from music theory, can combine to create a great work of music.
You miss the point completely. Haiku said the argument is unsound, because of what you mentioned. The intelligence doesn't matter, what matters is who wins the game. And since our intellect helps us with the game, the computer effectively defeated our intellect, not with its intellect, but with brute computing power, but still effectively beating our intellect. Since this is a chess/computer thread, I'm going to assume all arguments made relate to this.
The cheesykid still has a point.