FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I still wonder how Carlsen or other Super GMs would fare against Stockfish if they
1) Had unlimited time controls
2) An Analysis board to try out lines before moving
3) Access to databases/books/ etc
After all the strength of computers is that they technically have all three of these advantages available to them virtually. That puts a human player already into an unfair position.
One reason why I don't think computers are really "better" at chess is found in Go. So far even the best Go program was able to only draw a 9p even after it was given a 9 stone advantage.
drspudnik - i wear clothes - even in summertime when it is hot - i respect some psychological problems many people have with their and other bodies and sexualitie - i make allowances - but that does not mean that i confirm with every extreme problem with sexuality - your comment is obvioulsy an expression of such a problem. its interesting - subsession leads to obsession - perhaps this is the reason why the biggest porn industrie was made up in a country with the biggest subsession and biggest problems about that theme - usa.
What a delightful non-sequitur! And it's baloney too. By your logic, the largest porn industry should be in Saudi Arabia or some such. But it is funny that you interpreted my three word reply as something related to a sexual hangup. Go on...
in saudi arabia men can have more than one wife - so what?
"stopp it" "go on" - you really like the imperative lol - typicall american.
We're making great progress here. Now let's see why you attribute certain things as "typical" of Americans?
is track and field dead because machines can outperform humans???
the OP makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes, chess has been long dead. Since Deep Blue destroyed Kasparov. Nowadays it's a recreation activity. Otherwise, I big fat waste of time as Kasparov himself has said.
Deep Blue did not destroy Kasparov! He did win the match but only by one game, and its win could legitimately be considered an upset due to Kasparov's far superior endgame technique, strategic understanding, and his experience from previous games, especially his matches against Karpov.
This Russian national hero, who was Botvinnik's favorite student, who took the chess world by storm as a clearly obvious prodigy, who won strong adult tournaments as a child, whose calculation abilities and strategic planning are legendary, who won matches against the great Anatoly Karpov, made Nigel Short, who earned a title shot by beating out other world class GMs, look foolish, and Kasparov in turn himself lost to an oversized chess calculator. IBM was afraid, which was why they refused a rematch with Kasparov. They knew the result was genuinely an upset.
true not as dead as tic tac toe
but the point is in sports theres physical strength and everybody built differently and has different strengths. Chess is all mind that where humans exell over the animal kingdom... well robots will excell humans in everything soon so chess will either get bigger literally bigger board 10x10 or we will just be able to snap the moves in 5 seconds nomatter the position like computers.
No. the point is we can build machines to do things better than we can do them. That doesn't mean we don't continue living and functioning. Any computer can crush me in chess but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy sitting down and playing a human being.
There are still chess clubs all over the world; a computer could beat any club player. But people still love to play.
So: No, chess is not dead.
Please let me repeat my earlier point, which is that computers cannot 'think' they can only 'calculate'. Ergo as long as there are people playing, chess will not be dead.
Yup! Now lets hold a funeral!
we held it last month. We were wondering why there was an empty seat.
At some stage we will be able to create self-aware computers that think like we do. Then we will be able to build a computer that actually understands chess in the same way that we do, but which also has access to huge memory and computational ability. Such a machine will one day beat the likes of Houdini version 1782.8, or Stockfish 789 .3, or whatever. And be able to explain how it does it.
Of course, we might not bother to build suich a machine, one it becomes obvious that we can. Or the conventional computers may have solved chess by then.
Chess is about as alive as it's ever been. Computers change nothing. I can sit down and play vs players better/worse than me, and enjoy the game. The same is true of millions of others. Computers have nothing to do with that. Also, there are as many GMs playing as ever, memorization has not changed anything.
and a man riding a bike can defeat a man running on the street. why do we still enjoy watching track and field events in the olympics? oh yeah, cause its mano a mano, not mano a bicycilano........
this whole thread is bullshit. mathematicians have long estimated there are more possible chess positions than atoms in the universe. and so what if top GM's memorize lines to the first 10, 15 or 20 moves? okay, well there are still many moves left to be played in a typical game. computers have accelerated chess knowledge and made it possible for youngsters to become masters in far shorter time. but ruin the game??? hardly.
Chess will never die as long as there are those that enjoy playing it.
The average person can't even conceive of how complicated and "unsolvable" the game of Chess really is. Some of these same people think Poker is as complex as Chess. Basically, more power to us for identifying what the best game ever made was and is.