I have played some shockingly imperfect chess recently.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
Humans created chess, though...
.. World's, fastest, 'supercomputer'; All Hail, {mainland}, 'China'! ] ;
johnys2013 wrote:
Humans created chess, though...
And humans also created computers...
Dec 20, 2017
0
#2627
Perhaps luck is a the reason Alpha Zero won. Maybe Stockfish's programmer made a mistake and Alpha capitalized on it. Or Stockfish might have gambled on a move and was caught by Alpha. Since humans make mistakes, perhaps computers, which don't make mistakes, should be programming themselves.
Dec 20, 2017
0
#2628
pawn8888 wrote:
Perhaps luck is a the reason Alpha Zero won.
No.
Glad to clear that up.
pawn8888 wrote:
Perhaps luck is a the reason Alpha Zero won. Maybe Stockfish's programmer made a mistake and Alpha capitalized on it. Or Stockfish might have gambled on a move and was caught by Alpha. Since humans make mistakes, perhaps computers, which don't make mistakes, should be programming themselves.
There was no luck involved and chess engines do not gamble.
s23bog wrote:
BalanceToTheForce wrote:
I don't agree with btickler. If we look at the data presented to us, there is only one conclusion.
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated?
Apparently already assimilated...er, banned. Funny how often that happens to relatively new posters with trollish usernames/behavior that show up to oppose me 
.
Dec 21, 2017
0
#2631
If Stockfish's programmer made a mistake and Alpha won because of it. then it was good luck to Alpha. Computers don't gamble but programmers do.
pawn8888 wrote:
If Stockfish's programmer made a mistake and Alpha won because of it. then it was good luck to Alpha. Computers don't gamble but programmers do.
Programmers do not gamble when they are programming chess.
Solution is draw; how it will be is the question!
I'm developing an optimal play with help of databases.
I'm developing an optimal play with help of databases.
.. Given, my recent post ; Laying 'bare', 'Google's, connection, with the '2017', New standard, of "YouTube's" censorship/ de-monetization, {see link} ; The old axiom, of 'Where there's smoke, there may be fire', is raised ; Re. Google's, press-released, 'breakthrough', concerning, "Alpha-Zero"!
If, this sounds, like a 'strained' unrelated argument ; Consider, that, "Alpha-Zero's" purported 'breakthrough'; Doesn't seem, All that different, to having 'Solved chess'! ; Only, {starting out}, with, More pieces, on the board !?!
.. Add to that ; The projected, H-U-G-E, profits ; That would- will, accompany, such claims ; In areas, unrelated, to mere 'games'.. {ie. 'medical research' for one!} ; And, that would appear, to give 'Google' Inc. a motive, for Not being, completely Truthful !
As, they have already demonstrated, with their corporate 'squeeze play', on 'Free, {political}, Speech'! .. Which, I have reason to think, is due to shady, {or $hady} ; Behind-the-scenes, 'Deep-state', government- corporate, alliances ; That 'Google', {'Alpha-Go's, corporate owners}.. apparently, is involved in ; As per, the following, link.
'Where there's Smoke ; There's Fire'{?!} .. It Could be, bordering, on a 'No Brainer', tie-in ! o:
http://allnewspipeline.com/War_Against_Independent_Media_Reaches_Pitch.php
Dec 25, 2017
0
#2635
One argument for demonetising political videos would be that this dscourages cynical feeding of extreme viewpoints as clickbait. Such commercial motivation has influenced at least one election.
Tech companies (especially platforms) will only change their business models under pressure from anti-trust authorities, which themselves are (rather) weaker than they were in the past.
Anti-trust in the US has become rather toothless regarding Tech and ICT, unfortunately.
I think computers will solve chess eventually. But it won't affect us mere mortals.
.. Regarding, a famous, 'Np + N', math problem. ..{from, 'NY Times'/ 1991}.
{oops.. it's there ..But, you'll need to go to the 'Bing' {search-engine}, News page ; Type-in : 'Traveling Salesman', math ; And, look for a 1991, 'NY Times' article, mention}.
i think that stockfish is good engine but in future anyone can make a super chess engine then in that computer chess engine anyone cannot beat the engine i think
I beg to differ. If chess was solved as "winning" for any of the standard 6 openings (c4-f4+Nc3/f3)then it would only be for black, because black has the information advantage of knowing white's first move, white doesn't know how black will respond.
I came to this conclusion when Nakmura lost to Stockfish as white with +4 moves (I believe he opened with the King's Indian with Stockfish in the starting position).
Deep Fritz mated Kramnik in one move. Humanity is screwed now.