Once computing technology gets better, programmers will be able to create 32-piece databases.
That's when chess officially dies.
This is only true if you will be able to precisely remember all that data in the 32 pices databases. I bet though that a lifetime span will be too short to even look through a fraction of it.
Actually this topic is misconception. There is no unbeatable whether it's a human or machine. Machines are great at tactics but still have problems with positional play and even with endgame. I analysed someday a theoretical rook endgame with engine and it couldn't find the answer. Maybe it would have found it if it had plenty of time or ran on super computer but who knows. Usually strong players consider computer chess as fun and don't play very seriously against it and that is why we have such myth. But if you give a strong GM a task to beat it with enough attempts then i'm sure he or she will beat it sooner or later.
Its healthy and fun.
I don't think many people will care much if they lose to a computer, its like losing a race to a car. Chess is person VS person.
I do doubt. even on laptop top programs are aroun elo 3200. Top humans strugle to get occasional draw. Remember Adams Hydra challenge, gent did not stand a chance and he was/is a very positional player. And since then computers got faster and software has been made better. I would say top GM would need play aroung 20-100 games to win one.
But who cares. Computers solve differential equations faster than me, and people still do maths
It's not real elo. I don't know how this programs get their ratings. Probably they compete among each other. Engines are strong no doubts. They are very strong in theory because they have database but their positional skill is still questionable. Remember Kasparov-DeepBlue. Kasparov won the first match and lost second but the remach was very strange. Kasparov didn't have the chance to play it before and he said that probably people interfered. Also Kasparov tried to win this match at any cost and he went into very risky variations in some games but anyway he won the first game if i'm not mistaken. And Kramnik managed to win several games against engine as well. And speaking about strength of calculation and technology improvement. It's not so simple because chess complexity is exponential but not linear.
Why bother playing Stockfish 6
I'm not sure that hardware is faster nowdays than in 90s. If you compare pure calculation power of Deep Blue those days and Fritz in 2006 that it will be huge difference in favor of Deep Blue however Kasparov won the first game. Also human can have bad days. Kramnik missed checkmate in one in one of his losses so it's not good to make a conclusion after several games. Hardware can't make the difference because as i said chess complexity isn't linear. The biggest computer adavatages are opening and ending tables without them it's literaly nothing. I agree it's difficult to beat a machine but i'm sure if you give a human many attempts and he/she works on machine's weaknesses then it will be beaten eventually because its evaluation is not flexible and definately has flaws.
Why play chess? Seriously? Take this to Facebook don't doom this site with negitivity
"This complaint about chess being too worked out is as old as the hills" - Vishy Anand
I'm told (by folks who were around chess clubs back then) that people were complaining about opening books and such in the 1970s - why bother playing chess? Bobby Fischer knows how to get an advantage by force in xyz line! - the fact is, then and now, even if some random position becomes 'solved' (which is virtually impossible anyway), you'd have to memorize upwards of 40 variations and play them all perfectly. Engines aren't supposed to be our competitors, they're supposed to be our advisors - if your goal is to always be better than Stockfish, you should probably take up musical composition or painting - something computers can't do (yet)
every time you beat a computer, it's because it let you win. Makes it difficult to learn from your mistakes.
Agreed. I wonder when computers will beat elite players without opening books and tablebases. Oh wait...
Why even have a mind? Computers are going to get smarter than us.
Actually this topic is misconception. There is no unbeatable whether it's a human or machine. Machines are great at tactics but still have problems with positional play and even with endgame. I analysed someday a theoretical rook endgame with engine and it couldn't find the answer. Maybe it would have found it if it had plenty of time or ran on super computer but who knows. Usually strong players consider computer chess as fun and don't play very seriously against it and that is why we have such myth. But if you give a strong GM a task to beat it with enough attempts then i'm sure he or she will beat it sooner or later.
Let's suppose we have a match between players A and B. Player A wins 90% of the games . So you're saying that player B is better because he's able to eventually win some games?
Everyone is welcomed in a Centaur Tournament, featuring human assisted with engine. Games are unrated and won't result in a ban.
However, outside analysis is strictly limited to the games of this tournament. :)
There will be 4 tourneys this year, similar to the GRAND TOUR in real chess. ;)
Group (advisable to join - detailed rules):
http://www.chess.com/groups/home/double-round-robin-centaur-tour-drrct
Tournament (1 of 4):
http://www.chess.com/tournament/double-rr-centaur-tour---slovenia
I really don't understand the premise here......as a juggler, I meet better jugglers all the time, and it doesn't make me want to stop juggling. The whole thing seems like "Why have college professors? They'll never be as cool as Socrates!" "What's the point in running for office? We already won the Second World War!"
Why do we need idiots? No one can be as stupid as Ayn Rand!
I cant really think of any sport that a machine can't do better. Or a guy using a maching.
Maybe fencing? I dont think anyone bothered to build a fencing robot yet.
Take away the human-developed library of openings from these computers, and they aren't even able to accurately assess mainline opening positions. It's hard to call them "unbeatable" when they are so dependent on human-derived knowledge, and not on their computing power, in the openings. That's my understanding based on discussions I have had with a couple of CS students at MIT and CMU, anyways.
Let's suppose we have a match between players A and B. Player A wins 90% of the games . So you're saying that player B is better because he's able to eventually win some games?
No, B player is still worse but A one is not unbeatable.
I'm not sure that hardware is faster nowdays than in 90s. If you compare pure calculation power of Deep Blue those days and Fritz in 2006
At the time of Deep Blue (1997), Personal Computers were still in their infancy.
Sure, if you consider something that had been on the market for a couple of decades or so prior to that "infancy".
Omega Doom wrote: "Im not sure that hardware is faster nowdays than in 90s"......Is this the dumbest statement I have ever put into quotations?
Probably, I am just glad I was quoting someone else. The intel Xeon 2699v3 processor powers through over 5000x as many calculations per second as an intel 486 from the 90's, and you can't figure out if technology is going forward or staying the same?
Nothing is wrong with statement. Quote is wrong. Some people love taking sentences without context looks like you are this one.
Machines don't experience the joy of an expected win or the sinking feeling of an expected loss.
Machines don't play for love of the game.
A machine has not yet (to my knowledge) been built that chose to play Chess because it was fascinated by it, instead of just programmed to do it mindlessly.
When a quantum computer translates the Voynich Manuscript... THEN I'll be impressed.