Obviously going to get better, Kasparov got owned by the computer once!LOL!
Impossible to beat Computer
Sort:
LOL ... i like 2 beat the computer
Hydrocannon wrote:
Obviously going to get better, Kasparov got owned by the computer once!LOL!
Do you mean the 1997 match against deep blue
yes he did get killed by it!!
Jul 25, 2008
0
#45
Chess_Champion26 wrote:
Do you think that one day scientists and grandmasters will conjure up an unbeatable computer that will beat the greatest player(s) at the time?
I don't know about conjureing ? But I do know that a computer is just a shell, until the software is installed. If the software is designed to beat the greatest Chess players of its time, that would mean, that all the great Chess players of its time, are all in a Chess database. Which means as you know the computer would have access to all games played by the greatest Chess players. Depending on the software design and the speed of the micro chip it should be able to win ever Chess game. When and if a computer can do that, and if the software allows it(the computer) to reason, it may decide the game is not worth its processing time.
i am still happy i beat the computer a few times ... but readin this thread ... im sure i was playin against and easy chess computer opponent lol ... :S
Why don't they make a room that Allows the players to use computers. I'm not saying to allow cheating...and apparently it is easy to tell when someone is, but there are a lot of people that could enjoy watching and learning from games like this. It would be fun for me to play Spassky against "You" usding Bird"'for instance.
Aug 1, 2008
0
#48
joshWazteskin wrote:
Why don't they make a room that Allows the players to use computers. I'm not saying to allow cheating...and apparently it is easy to tell when someone is, but there are a lot of people that could enjoy watching and learning from games like this. It would be fun for me to play Spassky against "You" usding Bird"'for instance.
Kasparov has already started that.
I believe too that chess will not be completely solved, because of the two lines of chess strategy: the positional playing and the tactical play. The intermixing of these two strategies in any stage of a game of chess complicates the positions, that will render it complex to calculate the precise sequence of moves from move one to the final.
I think it's fun to speculate this kind of thing, yet it doesn't have any effect on what chess means to me. Even if computers "solve" chess, there is still a huge range of skill and learning for the rest of us who aren't and never will be best in the world. It might matter to those at the very peak of skill that there is now an opponent who will always beat them... but for the recreational player you'll always have tons of people you can play fun, competetive games with. Just because the computers are getting better, doesn't mean your human opponents are becoming GMs by electronic osmosis, still takes tons of hard work and study. Sorry for going off on a tangent.
uritbon wrote:
i see a time, where one line will be cracked to the finish, and everybody will be playing chess only by memory, and chess games will be decided only by who choses the right pawn at the begining! that sucks doesn't it, i bet there will be a convention who will vow not to play the winning line, and as more and more lines will be cracked, the only uncracked line shall be the amar opening, and all real chess games will begin with it, but alas, this hell for the chess player is not enough, they will crack that one too, and chess shall be lost and forgotten... i sure hope not :)
This doesn't make sense to me... A person would still have to have pretty much photographic memory to memorize the maybe 80 moves (lets say both players play 40 moves on average) of each "cracked" line. Say someone has memorized the optimal lines found by computers for 20 different lines (So they remember 1600 moves and their exact sequences). If you're playing this person and you deviate, playing a suboptimal move but one they haven't memorized, then suddenly they have to fall back on their knowledge, experience, and skill; none of which have any relation to if computers have solved chess or not. Even if there is one perfect sequences of moves and responses, the other player still has to know what to do if you play a non perfect move. Computers solving chess doesn't have very much effect on games between amateurs I don't think.
That's how Skynet starts.
Computers will eventually get better than people, there is no way to actually stop this. Heck, computers could essentially list all lists of moves possible, given enough processing power and memory (granted, it would be significant to have such a large database.)
The thing is... even if we get computers that smatter our brains to tiny bits.... it doesnt take away chess as a recreational activity between people. I believe Chess will, for many many years, be an intellectual activity that people will still participate in, regardless of how well computers have exceeded.
Aug 2, 2008
0
#54
I think that Rybka is already impossible to beat--
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/rybka-3-chessbase-fritz--rybka-rybka
I beat my computer ALL the time....... with my fist.... sometimes with a shoe.... and if Fritz gets lippy with me.. a baseball bat.
dwaxe wrote:
I think that Rybka is already impossible to beat-- http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/rybka-3-chessbase-fritz--rybka-rybka
nope. If I play a correspondance game with Rybka, and I use (of course) some computer for the check of the tactical questions, I win always. I think everybody with a FIDE rating more than 2200 can do that.
darius wrote: The chess computers are all phony. In the old days, there was a man inside a box who made the moves for the so-called machine. Today, there is a hidden cadre of chess experts in the himalayas who are wired up to all the chess computers created, and they make the moves for the so-called machine. It amazes me how gullible some people are. Chess machines! Bah! This trick has been perpetrated on the public since the 1800's and people still fall for it.
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
this is very good disscusion
mandelshtam wrote:
dwaxe wrote:
I think that Rybka is already impossible to beat-- http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/rybka-3-chessbase-fritz--rybka-rybka nope. If I play a correspondance game with Rybka, and I use (of course) some computer for the check of the tactical questions, I win always. I think everybody with a FIDE rating more than 2200 can do that.
Of course any software can be beaten, its just very difficult
computers r gettin better every day ...