Impossible to beat Computer

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.

...So everytime i play chess partner some guy is in my computer making all moves?
That really scares me... I wonder when fritz will take over the world with a huge army of tiny people

haha that is funny

maniac2008 wrote:

yeah ofcourse  any computer can be beaten somehow ... but computers are gettin stronger and stronger and i think 1 day they will be so good even the greatest chess players will not be able 2 beat them what u think??

I think you didn't get my point: the COMBINATION of human PLUS program is MUCH stronger than any program (or ANY combination  of (two or more) programs), because they (the programs) have the brute force, and we have the intuition.

oh yes ... i agree...

bastiaan wrote:

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.

...So everytime i play chess partner some guy is in my computer making all moves?
That really scares me... I wonder when fritz will take over the world with a huge army of tiny people

I think he meant somthing like deep blue!!!!

But i agree with you!!!!

lol ... yeah ... totally

;)

consider

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/07/19/checkers/

They only claim to have "solved" checkers in 2007. I'm no mathematician, but chess must have a billion times as many possibilities.

However, I believe computers will soon have the foresight to be unbeatable as white - meaning, a draw will be the best a human can get.

The comments about augmenting human intelligence are, in my opinion, ridiculous. Computers will be at a level that surpasses ANY human's ability within 10-20 years (sorry grandmasters). Sorry, JP (grammas boy), but robot ears and robot chess brains are not coming that soon.

Computers will soon be way out of the league ofthe greatest human players. I agree with vibovit, 'how long can you last' will be the challenge for grandmasters against compooders. The computers themselves will have to decide whether white wins every game or every game is a draw (this is with their perfect play of course), I suspect every game is a draw.

All this in no way means that chess is somehow 'dead'. Their will still be outstanding (human) world champions, stunning (human) games, Chess.com etc. There will still be the same competitions and leagues, the same desire to improve and passion for excellence, the same love (addiction!?) of the game....aaahhhh.

Last time i checked rybka had to be handicaped to be beatable...

Even great GMs sometimes have to rely on intution to make a move. You can hear them say every now and then "...and black has a solid position, white surely has the initiative etc". A computer has no way to describe a position as "I kind of like this position". It will make its moves following strict logic and in case of uncertainty it will simply fail to think.

Simply put, they lack strategy and creative thinking. The biggest asset computers have is that they can calculate fast and err very rarely and that is why they are so strong. In reality if we tried to make as few mistakes (none, if possible) we could easily play against a comp and win more than lose...

As far as I can remember, the last entity which has beaten Rybka on equal conditions was...Hiarcs (another computer).

What? It's already happened!  I seem to remember a machine beating that Kasparov fellow (he was pretty good too) rather a long time ago. That was an expensive effort. Nowdays computer chess engines are a hobby for DIY'ers in the basement. The present day top engines are unbeatable (there was a recent chess.com news item celebrating a rare human vs engine victory -- but the human had pawn + move odds! -- no one beats top chess engines, even. And no one really has major resources to devote to developing a top engine. After IBM beat Kasparov they decided the promotional bang for the buck was gone. If the Pentagon put a billion dollars into designing and building a dedicated computer chess machine (perhaps an alien race has challenged the world to a do-or-die chess match)  one wonders how strong it would be... (but the way tech goes... that billion dollar chess computer would be no better than an ordinary desktop of 20 years into the future)... in short, the future of chess belongs to the machines. 

This message brought to you by -- Cyberdyne Industries -- If you see John Connor, tell him I've got an important message for him.

There are a lot of miss-conceptions here about a lot of different things.  Let’s clear some of them up.


   1. Some people seem to think that humans will always have the advantage from a strategic perspective against computers due to their intuition, but one thing you guys fail to realise is that strategy only means something when you can’t think through every combination.  If Chess was ‘solved’ then it would be 100% tactical, and that’s a fact.

   2. Lots of people seem to think that if they play their computer at Chess and beat it then they “can beat their computer”, but this is not the case.  When computers are playing Chess they have two major operational parts, the hardware is the first and the software is the second.  The hardware is the part that does the processing and the software is the part that dictates what needs to be processed and how.  Some Chess programs, despite having strong hardware backing them, have weak logic and so can be easily beaten.  Today’s strongest Chess programs on today’s strongest computers, without any handicap, are, in my opinion, already unbeatable by human players despite being far from perfect.

   3. And to answer the question of, ‘will Chess be solved’, yes it will.  I quote:

“Q: I heard on the news that a chip, now on the market, is only three atoms thick. Is that visible to the naked eye? How many atoms thick is a strand of hair?

A: You are probably talking about a transistor built recently by Intel. It's the world's smallest and fastest CMOS transistor. Transistors are switches that control electron flow in a microchip, the brains of a computer.

 Individual transistors about 10 microns tall on the Intel i4004 microprocessor, the first chip ever built, 1970. [© 1995-2001 Michael W. Davidson and The Florida State University, used with permission.]

The new transistor is 0.03 microns long, says Intel spokesman Michael Sullivan, and contains gate oxides (an insulating layer) so skinny it's hard to believe: three atoms thick (0.0003 microns). But it's not on the market yet. This is a design breakthrough.

You ask if the transistor is big enough to see. No, it isn't visible to the naked eye. The lower limit of visibility is 40 microns, which is about half-a-hair thick and over a thousand times bigger than this microscopic transistor.

Finally, how many atoms thick is a human hair? A million atoms.

Thinking of a 1-million-atom-thick human hair, puts Intel's gate-oxide achievement into perspective: three- atoms thick. Incredibly tiny. "These new transistors," Intel says, will be able to "...complete 400 million calculations in the blink of an eye...", literally: a tenth of a second. “

When this technology and other technology that is equally, if not more impressive makes it’s way onto the general market then it’s possible that Chess could be ‘solved’.

A

WILL IF THEY DO SO WITH THE COMPUTER ,EVERY TIME THEY MAKE NEW ,HUMAN WILL MAKE A NEW BABY TO DEFEAT THE COMPUTER EHEHHEHEHEHEH

You have to remember Deep Blue made many mistakes that match, plus Kasparov beat it in an earlier match

Computers will only be as intelligent as we make them! Even if it did solve chess, I could still beat it ^^), because "All things are possible to the one who believes" - Jesus Christ

computers are getting very strong. I played 6   10 minute games vs Computer impossible, and only drew once. According to the major engines like fritz, they said that I usually got an edge in the opening, but it all goes downhill in the middlegame, where tactics dominate.

No, look at freestyle (people allowed to use computers) chess on playchess.com. 2 average players beat all the computers and grandmasters.

Human intuition and strategy is unmatched, Computers tactical analysis is unmatched. The 2 combined and no one computer can ever hope to win.

Plus you can double the power of a computer. But that doesn't mean it can see 2x as far ahead. Once it gets beyond so many thinking lines its just taking half the time to solve that thinking line. But most of the time they will still be working within a thinking line of each other, and the farther you go the more they will be working on the same lines.

Basically the x2 faster computer might be one move ahead, or might not. The biggest advantage will come when it finally solves for mate, if the other computer isn't in a better situation strategically.

i have beat computer easy computer medium but in bullet i accidently beat up computer hard easily