The choice between playing the computer and a real live person

(On the hard level that is:

Do you want to play someone who makes mistakes?

Or do you want to play someone who never makes mistakes?

PLaying someone who makes mistakes is easier than playing a machine that never makes a mistake.

How many have beaten the hard level?

I think the computer has a learning curve:  I beat it in the beginning but now it's learned my habits and I haven't learned its.

With all due respect, no human being alive can win from the computer anymore. Your average pc and Houdini 3, Rybka or Fritz 13 will kill off anybody. Having said that, while the computer is a great tool to get some practice (especially if you set it to a level a bit above your own level) I much prefer playing against people. Especially stronger people who can tell where I make my mistakes.

PS, I don't believe the computer learned your habbits, I only believe you played it a very low level. There is no way you could possibly beat a computer on it's max settings.

The java computer makes lots of mistakes, but not "oops I didn't see you were attacking my undefended piece" type of mistakes.

Although I've noticed sometimes it plays better than others.

I'd rather play a human because they know how to pressure you much better and play logical  moves that make things difficult.  Computers are tactically very good of course, and so maybe you could use it as tactical practice, but games against humans are always better practice in general.

Pretty sure he's talking about this computer

http://www.chess.com/play/computer

Although even when talking about houdini and stockfish, computers still make mistakes.  Otherwise things like ICCF wouldn't exist (where computer use is allowed).

Ah, you are probably very right! My bad :)

the player has emotion brah and can feel the power of each move. The resonation of defeat introspective formulates a transubstantiation of a convulation of mind/body and soul to better oneself. The computer is devoid of that transpiration of 2 beings battling through attrition to improve one's humanity and the enormity of existential beyond the two beings. Amen my brahs and good luck in this journey of withheld permissions in which we must strive for absolute vicory

Never underestimate the fragaility of the mind brah. If there is a thin line between genius and insane which is manifested in the similar apparel of an elderly university professor and a homeless man. Then logically there are innumberable ways to create an influx on the continuum of genius and insane, thus as a pendulum shifts, so could our minds by just one event  have permanent, adverse ramifications. Thus, the mind is a beautiful thing to waste. Therefore, i want to congratulate  all chess.com members for striving to improve.

in short i rather play the computer easier to learn from

you didn't read my post;  I said the hard level' 1600, not 1299

competition is not humanity

no , but through experience we clarify our humanity  or purpose

my sentiments exactly; if i can beat a machine i'll be stronger than John Henry

Since computers and robots will be replacing 47% of our jobs, we need to compete against them. Unfortunately, the human race haven't evolved enough to beat computers. Maybe the solution is to reduce the human population.

Computers are already smarter than us at chess and computers are taking over our jobs ...

Has no one watched The Terminator and The Matrix (and about 3 million other - technology taking over the world movies) ???

The end is nigh

On a more personal note - I prefer playing against humans but I don't get much chance to play people face to face. I am sure there is a local chess club but I've not found it yet, or had the time ... (ok I am lazy)

I found some people to play against in real life ... but of course real life gets in the way and it's not always easy to organise a game on a regular basis.

So I am thankful I can come here and play against people rather than just the chess that comes with windows or another free chess emulator on the internet.

Although possibly for the sake of preservation we should take a sledgehammer to our computers and all agree somewhere to meet to play in person...

humans for winning, computers for learning 

Playing a computer might be useful for learning, but only to a degree IMO. Since the computer doesn't make blunders, and doesn't have human emotions, nor needs to take a moment to consider all options (those occur in the blink of an eye for a computer). I think it takes a lot away from the game. Where's the adrenaline, the analyzing of your opponent's last move and seeing that he made an error you can exploit?

Beating a human opponent beats beating a piece of metal.

this guy above me understands my quote. Good job brah

Chess is not a life experience

Chess does not clarify your humanity

In fact I seriously doubt whether any of you chess freaks have any humanity at all: I've never met a chess freak who had one ounce of humanity.  They were all mental midgets with no girlfriend and no life except distraction:: which is what chess is.

It's the other way around.  The reverse is true.  You're dyslexic.  Computers cannot learn:  the only thing they can do is win or lose, they have to be programmed.  You don't learn anything from a computer: youlearn from life experience.  Life is not about winning.  If you haven't learned that yet you have a lot of growing up to do.