Forums

The chess.com analysis engine is a jerk

Sort:
u0-0000
u0-0000
Jan 12, 2009
0
#21
rich wrote:

No my moves have been fine. If your techniques were superior you would have a lead 13 moves into the game. Your annoying. Not to mention you are a troll !

hmmm name calling. good going lad.

atomichicken
atomichicken
Jan 12, 2009
0
#22
rich wrote:

No my moves have been fine. If your techniques were superior you would have a lead 13 moves into the game. Your annoying.

Another simple minded argument there backed up by nothing. I do now have an edge 13 moves in, you just can't see it because you are only in the late beginner/early intermediate category, if that, and will only really improve upon that when you become mature enough to realise it! And learn from your mistakes. My advantage would undoubtably have been more had I not made that 1 mistake, because it was a big mistake. As for your ending sentiment "Your annoying", what a wonderful end to a well argued response.. oh whoops I forgot you can't understand sarcasm either, I suppose I'm going to get another response like "Yes, I know it was, debating is one of my many talents". And at least learn to spell if you're going to debate like an infant. In that context it's "you're", not "your".

atomichicken
atomichicken
Jan 12, 2009
0
#23
rich wrote:

No my moves have been fine. If your techniques were superior you would have a lead 13 moves into the game. Your annoying. Not to mention you are a troll !

Oh I see you have now added in the troll part to your philosophical masterpiece. I'm not a troll, I focus on chess now. You're just about the biggest troll this site's ever seen, and not even a witty one at that. At least cheater_1 was entertaining and witty. You just troll the site aggrovating everyone with your ignorance.

Ray_Brooks
Ray_Brooks
Jan 12, 2009
0
#24

"You're just about the biggest troll this site's ever seen, and not even a witty one at that. At least cheater_1 was entertaining and witty. You just troll the site aggravating everyone with your ignorance."

 

Nail, bulbous end, contact!

 

u0-0000
u0-0000
Jan 12, 2009
0
#25
atomichicken wrote:
rich wrote:

No my moves have been fine. If your techniques were superior you would have a lead 13 moves into the game. Your annoying. Not to mention you are a troll !

Oh I see you have now added in the troll part to your philosophical masterpiece. I'm not a troll, I focus on chess now. You're just about the biggest troll this site's ever seen, and not even a witty one at that. At least cheater_1 was entertaining and witty. You just troll the site aggrovating everyone with your ignorance.

while I like your argument, you shouldn't have screwed up the "aggrovating" part....

atomichicken
atomichicken
Jan 12, 2009
0
#26

lol whoops you got me Embarassed. I'll just leave the spelling out of it in future!

u0-0000
u0-0000
Jan 12, 2009
0
#27
atomichicken wrote:

lol whoops you got me . I'll just leave the spelling out of it in future!

so we learn. Wink

atomichicken
atomichicken
Jan 12, 2009
0
#28
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:

lol whoops you got me . I'll just leave the spelling out of it in future!

so we learn.

Well, we do. But I can think of a certain someone who that apparantly doesn't have to apply to Smile.

u0-0000
u0-0000
Jan 12, 2009
0
#29
atomichicken wrote:
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:

lol whoops you got me . I'll just leave the spelling out of it in future!

so we learn.

Well, we do. But I can think of a certain someone who that apparantly doesn't have to apply to .

Rich, very rich coming from you!!! lol

atomichicken
atomichicken
Jan 12, 2009
0
#30
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:

lol whoops you got me . I'll just leave the spelling out of it in future!

so we learn.

Well, we do. But I can think of a certain someone who that apparantly doesn't have to apply to .

Rich, very rich coming from you!!! lol

Was that a joke? Or are you being serious, because I always try to learn from my mistakes. You understand I wasn't talking about you!

neb-c
neb-c
Jan 12, 2009
0
#31
atomichicken wrote:
neb-c wrote:

It's because it is so smart that it notices some stuff that happens in many moves which you don't see. Sometimes it makes mistakes but it is not programmed for every move. Only programmed most of the moves.

Yes, going back on topic the advantage that humans have is that we don't have to do a brute force check in order to find the best move. Although the very top engines now have over taken humans probably, I think.

It can never be smarter than humans. Only smarter than a specific human. Humans are the one's who made the engine. They can't learn more than they know. That is like the meaning of life. No machine can explain unless a human tells it. If a machine was possible of thinking then the world could be invaded, lol.

u0-0000
u0-0000
Jan 12, 2009
0
#32
atomichicken wrote:
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:

lol whoops you got me . I'll just leave the spelling out of it in future!

so we learn.

Well, we do. But I can think of a certain someone who that apparantly doesn't have to apply to .

Rich, very rich coming from you!!! lol

Was that a joke? Or are you being serious, because I always try to learn from my mistakes. You understand I wasn't talking about you!

omg

I took the mickey out of Rich....

 

who the hell where you referring too?

atomichicken
atomichicken
Jan 12, 2009
0
#33
neb-c wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
neb-c wrote:

It's because it is so smart that it notices some stuff that happens in many moves which you don't see. Sometimes it makes mistakes but it is not programmed for every move. Only programmed most of the moves.

Yes, going back on topic the advantage that humans have is that we don't have to do a brute force check in order to find the best move. Although the very top engines now have over taken humans probably, I think.

It can never be smarter than humans. Only smarter than a specific human. Humans are the one's who made the engine. They can't learn more than they know. That is like the meaning of life. No machine can explain unless a human tells it. If a machine was possible of thinking then the world could be invaded, lol.

Well yes, I wasn't trying to say anything too profound there only that computers now have likely become stronger than their masters through the skills their masters have given them Smile.

atomichicken
atomichicken
Jan 12, 2009
0
#34
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:

lol whoops you got me . I'll just leave the spelling out of it in future!

so we learn.

Well, we do. But I can think of a certain someone who that apparantly doesn't have to apply to .

Rich, very rich coming from you!!! lol

Was that a joke? Or are you being serious, because I always try to learn from my mistakes. You understand I wasn't talking about you!

omg

I took the mickey out of Rich....

OK, yeah I thought so, just this is the internet so I wanted to make sure Smile. It wasn't so obvious.

u0-0000
u0-0000
Jan 12, 2009
0
#35
neb-c wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
neb-c wrote:

It's because it is so smart that it notices some stuff that happens in many moves which you don't see. Sometimes it makes mistakes but it is not programmed for every move. Only programmed most of the moves.

Yes, going back on topic the advantage that humans have is that we don't have to do a brute force check in order to find the best move. Although the very top engines now have over taken humans probably, I think.

It can never be smarter than humans. Only smarter than a specific human. Humans are the one's who made the engine. They can't learn more than they know. That is like the meaning of life. No machine can explain unless a human tells it. If a machine was possible of thinking then the world could be invaded, lol.

neb-c

 

You are in of a HUGE surprise...

RandomPrecision
RandomPrecision
Show your flair!
Jan 12, 2009
0
#36
neb-c wrote:

It can never be smarter than humans. Only smarter than a specific human. Humans are the one's who made the engine. They can't learn more than they know. That is like the meaning of life. No machine can explain unless a human tells it. If a machine was possible of thinking then the world could be invaded, lol.

Humans designed computer programs that can *instantly* tell me what 432489327432 * 432493824793284 is.  That doesn't mean the human who designed it was capable of the same computation in the same amount of time.

As for machine learning, a few wikipedia articles might surprise you.  Relevantly, someone at my university a few years ago designed a program that uses artificial neural networks to 'learn' chess from reading PGN files.

esolom
esolom
Jan 12, 2009
0
#37

The analyser said the following to me...

ALTERNATIVE - You slipped from a better position to an equal one. You should have played 7... e5

(+0.28) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 11... exd5

ALTERNATIVE - You should probably give up chess.

BY THE WAY - I have been sleeping with your wife.

u0-0000
u0-0000
Jan 12, 2009
0
#38
esolom wrote:

The analyser said the following to me...

ALTERNATIVE - You slipped from a better position to an equal one. You should have played 7... e5

(+0.28) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 11... exd5

ALTERNATIVE - You should probably give up chess.

BY THE WAY - I have been sleeping with your wife.

lol this Erik dude and his computers and schemes. Be very careful!

Narz
Narz
Jan 12, 2009
0
#39
esolom wrote:

The analyser said the following to me...

ALTERNATIVE - You slipped from a better position to an equal one. You should have played 7... e5

(+0.28) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 11... exd5

ALTERNATIVE - You should probably give up chess.

BY THE WAY - I have been sleeping with your wife.

ahahahahaha Laughing

atomichicken
atomichicken
Jan 12, 2009
0
#40
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
0-0 wrote:
atomichicken wrote:

lol whoops you got me . I'll just leave the spelling out of it in future!

so we learn.

Well, we do. But I can think of a certain someone who that apparantly doesn't have to apply to .

Rich, very rich coming from you!!! lol

Was that a joke? Or are you being serious, because I always try to learn from my mistakes. You understand I wasn't talking about you!

omg

I took the mickey out of Rich....

 

who the hell where you referring too?

Well I was referring to Rich also.