Engines are superior to human players. It's very simple.
To keep claiming otherwise is just as escape from reality.
what would be the result if morphy had played up against kasparov?
Sort:
Yereslov wrote:
Engines are superior to human players. It's very simple.
To keep claiming otherwise is just as escape from reality.
Engines cannot make humans, humans can make engines. It's human intelligence that makes engines work. It was created to work for our benefit not the other way around. I bet that the one who created your engine know the flaws of it's system. So who is better, the engine or the creator? Well then that is the reality.
Engines can consistently beat human players, that's true, but they each play incredibly different styles of game that makes such a statement just a little too simplistic. There are parts of the game that humans easily outperform engines in, and as a result, blindly trusting an engine's assessment as to the validity of human moves is problematic to sy the least. Where engine's make it up is in pure calculation.
Consider this: if it was as simple as Yereslov suggests, then a centaur (human assisted engine) would be no better than an engine alone. Centaurs, however, can consistently outplay even today's top engines.
TheGrobe wrote:
Engines can consistently beat human players, that's true, but they each play incredibly different styles of game that makes such a statement just a little too simplistic. There are parts of the game that humans easily outperform engines in, and as a result, blindly trusting an engine's assessment as to the validity of human moves is problematic to sy the least. Where engine's make it up is in pure calculation.
Consider this: if it was as simple as Yereslov suggests, then a centaur (human assisted engine) would be no better than an engine alone. Centaurs, however, can consistently outplay even today's top engines.
See Yeres, your arguement is too dubious to this thread.
TheGrobe wrote:
Engines can consistently beat human players, that's true, but they each play incredibly different styles of game that makes such a statement just a little too simplistic. There are parts of the game that humans easily outperform engines in, and as a result, blindly trusting an engine's assessment as to the validity of human moves is problematic to sy the least. Where engine's make it up is in pure calculation.
Consider this: if it was as simple as Yereslov suggests, then a centaur (human assisted engine) would be no better than an engine alone. Centaurs, however, can consistently outplay even today's top engines.
Yes, but that's with the help of an engine.
You have no evidence to make the claim that humans are superior in a specific area of chess.
What we consider brilliant or genius is spotted by an engine in seconds, or is later to be found false.
Anyways, how could Morphy be Morphy if he was born in the future?
He would be a different person, hence not Morphy.
Did anyone actually try realizing this?
"Paul Morphy" is a person from the 19th century. If he was born today he would most likely have a different name and be born in a different place, with different parents, a different life, and a different education.
If we're arguing from the "time travel argument" then he would still definitely not be "Paul Morphy."
That would be a completely different person simply because of the historical and experiential change.
It's kind of like arguing "What if Abraham Lincoln became a dinosaur by travleling into the future to fight zombies?"
All of your previous posts since you joined now make perfect sense
BowerickWowbagger wrote:
yeah....you like said it man....
This must be the ingredient needed for Yeres nano engine.
If Morphy is to play with Kasparov, endless arguments will be settled by all parties involved. The ratio must be 10+ vs. 1. But the odds of one is greater than the many. Consider the backing of an engine against the wisdom of the many. In the end the issue reached to a topic of "man against engine". Morphy is the man and Kasparov must be the engine. Yereslov must be the judge.
Yereslov wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Engines can consistently beat human players, that's true, but they each play incredibly different styles of game that makes such a statement just a little too simplistic. There are parts of the game that humans easily outperform engines in, and as a result, blindly trusting an engine's assessment as to the validity of human moves is problematic to sy the least. Where engine's make it up is in pure calculation.
Consider this: if it was as simple as Yereslov suggests, then a centaur (human assisted engine) would be no better than an engine alone. Centaurs, however, can consistently outplay even today's top engines.
Yes, but that's with the help of an engine.
You have no evidence to make the claim that humans are superior in a specific area of chess.
What we consider brilliant or genius is spotted by an engine in seconds, or is later to be found false.
Please tell me you're not really this thick.
i can defeat Usain Bolt in a straight 100m any day by being shot out of a cannon.
This must be a nano engine that is over heating and better than humans. Lol.
Yereslov wrote:
Anyways, how could Morphy be Morphy if he was born in the future?
He would be a different person, hence not Morphy.
Did anyone actually try realizing this?
"Paul Morphy" is a person from the 19th century. If he was born today he would most likely have a different name and be born in a different place, with different parents, a different life, and a different education.
If we're arguing from the "time travel argument" then he would still definitely not be "Paul Morphy."
That would be a completely different person simply because of the historical and experiential change.
Lol!!! This statement is very funny......this thread is just for opinions and can never be real.
joeydvivre wrote:
I kept referring to Yereslov as a 1300 player on a couple of threads and two people - not one but two people - sent me e-mails about how offended they were along with his USCF activity which says that (if I remember correctly) he has broken 900 once but is generally an 800's player. He is in college which he thinks sucks.
Yereslov must be a 12 year old boy. Funny thing if my prediction is right, we are making folly of ourselves by responding to Yereslov seriously. In proverbs it state that if a fool questions you, answer it foolishly too. This way the guy will be aware of his foolishness. Lol!!!!
The famous kid, forgot to bring with him his nano engine.
Morphy would beat kasparov blind folded.
Aug 18, 2012
0
#679
Luminosity1 wrote:
Morphy would beat kasparov blind folded.
What if Kasparov doesn't want to be blindfolded?
One must not be carried away by a man made engine. One of this days yours will be obsolete, another system will overtake it's ways. Better be human and develop your intelligence in a normal way. Humans are not perfect but it is becoming. Too much reliance on this nano engine stuff makes you dull and non creative. Your objectives seems right but the path of your choice of direction will lead you away from the right way. The people you are arguing with based on their stats are higher than yours, surely they play chess better than yourself. With these data, I can say their statements must be better than yours.