Why play tennis? There is Rafael Nadal out there.
Why run? There is Usain Bolt out there.
Why play soccer? There is Cristiano Ronaldo out there.
Why play checkers? Computers solved checkers out there.
Why work out? There is Rich Froning out there.
Why play poker? There is Phil Ivey out there.
Why eat healthy? There is good chance of cancer when you're old regardless of what you do out there.
Why make money? There is Bill Gates out there.
ok i'll stop now
Why play tennis? There is Rafael Nadal out there.
Why run? There is Usain Bolt out there.
Why play soccer? There is Cristiano Ronaldo out there.
Why play checkers? Computers solved checkers out there.
Why work out? There is Rich Froning out there.
Why play poker? There is Phil Ivey out there.
Why eat healthy? There is good chance of cancer when you're old regardless of what you do out there.
Why make money? There is Bill Gates out there.
ok i'll stop now
Whew!
I have heard that chess has in fact been solved by the new quantum computer. Even so, we are not computers, we humans can still play one another and enjoy the game without using computers, just our own native intelligence. I like to play and crush my opponent's ego. I once beat a man at my chess club three games in a row. I saw him again a few days later and he said he couldn't sleep that night! I laughed and politely suggested he should commit suicide.
Because we play against humans :D
Humans are not computers...
if chess is solved, why play?
Because you gotta keep your brain moving, like we do jogging to keep our body in shape. And because, thats how we are able to make the machine unbeatable.
Likewise, If you don't memorise the routes because of GPS, you should. If you don't do calculation in your head because of calculator, you should. Atleast give it a try, otherwise, human race will become dumb a**.
For the love of the game. For the beauty and the mystery. For the beneficial impact that accurate play (at my level) has on my mind. For the fun of playing another living being down here in material form. And much more.
For the same reason people put words and even whole sentences here on the forum.
Old topic, but I'd like to give my thoughts.
People compare chess and computers to e.g. athletes and machines. Why do sprinters bother! The swimmer can take a boat!
But somehow that's not very convincing to the average person I think. I was playing in a coffee shop once when someone in line (who gave the impression that they probably couldn't set up the board correctly) told me they had a computer at home that could find "the best moves."
So why is an athlete respected? It's the work ethic, the self improvement, and the competition that people admire. People willing to test their own limits, and compete against others. And frankly, they don't realize chess takes that much effort. Oh sure, they appreciate that it's a "smart" game, just like a professional musician sounds "really good" but I don't think the average person realizes how many thousands of hours of practice go into it, and that chess is respectable for all the same reasons any professional is admired. It takes disciplined training, we test our own limits, and we compete against others who do the same!
Which is another thing I think people don't realize, that chess (at high levels anyway) is a competition! People really struggle and sweat to preform. It may be something you do on a rainy day to pass the time, but to professionals it's just a grueling as running a marathon.
The second broad reason is chess isn't only seen as smart, but also clever... that things like creativity and psychology play a huge role. I had a cousin tell me proudly that when he plays, he'll sacrifice his queen because it will psychologically throw off his opponent (even if his opponent is the computer he says) and that it increases the chances of his victory! Sounds silly to us, but this is how non-players think! And if a heartless machine can beat the most cunning humans, well then chess must not be that clever after all.
What they fail to understand here is that engines don't find the best moves... it's just their moves on average contain less errors than the best humans. Beating a professional player is similar to a mathematician forgetting to carry the 1, and a pocket calculator pointing it out. Computers beat the best humans but they fail (miserably I might add) at the planning, the creativity and beauty of the game (and there is some!)
So in summary, it's just that they don't understand the game... and it's true, chess is quite esoteric. If I mash the keys on a piano, everyone around me, most of all myself, will realize it's just noise, not music. Yet the equivalent chess player, the person who only knows how the pieces move, has no way of knowing the endless room for self improvement, the grueling competition, and the beauty chess offers to those who devote themselves to the game.
Very well said shell knight! I admire you!
Very well said shell knight! I admire you!
Thank you. Chess is a really wonderful game to me, and it feels good to share my feelings about it :)
Why play tennis? There is Rafael Nadal out there.
Why run? There is Usain Bolt out there.
Why play soccer? There is Cristiano Ronaldo out there.
Why play checkers? Computers solved checkers out there.
Why work out? There is Rich Froning out there.
Why play poker? There is Phil Ivey out there.
Why eat healthy? There is good chance of cancer when you're old regardless of what you do out there.
Why make money? There is Bill Gates out there.
ok i'll stop now
good one
Chess is the gym of the brain. It prevents Alzheimer. It boosts creativity. It helps us discover many things about ourselves.
Forget the machines when you play. Use them before the game for preparation if you want or after the game to find the moves that you missed.
are computers strong enough to beat the best players?
I rarely play against computers because I just don't enjoy it. Even if it is online I prefer to play against a human who might either make a blunder or some creative masterpiece that makes me stop and think "Wow, I never saw that" at any moment. Obviously computers regularly do the latter, but their relentlessness puts me off.
Even though it isn't quite on the same line as the original post, still on the same subject I also have mixed feelings on chess engines used in commentary. I really enjoy watching chess with commentary, so much so I have recently been watching almost the entire 2014 US Championships coverage on the St Louis chess centre website. They have a good mix of two commentators not using engines (mostly Yasser Seirawan) and one using engines.
The guy using the engines does still plug his own creativity into them to look for lines rather than just parroting exactly what the computer says from the current position, but still it takes some of the joy out of watching an exciting game when he says "He's just missed a clear cut win with this line".
Timur Gareev had an unbelievable attack against Alejandro Ramirez, the computer basically said 'just resign Ramirez, you're toast', but Gareev didn't quite find the best moves, Ramirez defended stoutly and suddenly the advantage faded. It was exciting to watch, but with the engines showing the clear winning lines it was easy to just think "Oh, yeah, Gareev blundered, he missed a clear winning line".
Same later on in the exciting attacking playoff between Anna Zatonskih and Tatev Abrahamyan. A really exciting match, but Maurice Ashley said at one point to the effect of "If she finds Rb1 here, it's over". She didn't, it wasn't over and Abrahmyan defended brilliantly while Zatonskih also still found some amazing moves. Somehow though with the commentators showing engine lines you are often left feeling like "Oh yeah, Abrahamyan defended brilliantly, but she only went through because Anna missed a computer move to win".
I dunno, I like seeing computer analysis of lines too, it enriches a position to see amazing variations, it's just that bitter-sweet conflict of seeing the great lines, but it somehow diminishing the great game that the players had with still amazing moves beyond my finding.
I've never understood this only-do-something-to-be-the-absolute-best-there-ever mentality.
I totally agree.