Except that's some other use of "solved" than the one everyone else is using. The current preferred term for what you're talking about it "super-human" play.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
torrubirubi wrote:
We will probably begin to play Capablanca chess, with a 100-squares board and two additional pieces.
Yes at the variant forum we're already doing that, including chess-games on even larger boards including "infinite chess". It's fun because there's no engines, let alone being solved.😊
waterloo:
infinite chess:
chessspy1 wrote:
Going back to an earlier post, I agree that 'solved' in strict terms has a definite meaning with regard to board games. My point earlier was that if and when programs can reliably beat unaided humans in every game, as black or white, then the game is for all intents and purposes 'solved'.
They've been doing that for years.
Jan 16, 2018
0
#2685
Rsava wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
AlphaZero looked at far fewer variations than stockfish. "Rather than look at the whole tree--it worked out which branch to look at."
This is interesting as this is the same way Correspondence GrandMasters play using chess engines. They force their chess engine to analyze the most promising variation [or variations] and discard the rest.
This is one reason a strong human player with a strong machine can usually beat a strong machine.
I don't think that correspondence players are allowed to use engines. That would defeat the purpose of playing correspondence chess. It's supposed to be about the art and beauty of the game. I love looking deep into a position (5-10 moves deep, into every candidate move variation) to find the best move. You're only cheating yourself out of that experience if you use an engine.
It depends on the CC league and tournament. A lot more are allowing it as it is impossible to enforce a rule like that. For instance, I believe ICCF allows their use.
chess.com does not find it impossible to enforce such a rule to a useful extent. Unassisted humans are distinguishable from computers, or strongly assisted humans with a reasonable amount of data.
ICCF made that decision a long while ago on the incorrect grounds that a ban could not work, and they became the International Centaur Chess Federation rather than (as previously) a human correspondence chess association.
Elroch wrote:
Rsava wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
AlphaZero looked at far fewer variations than stockfish. "Rather than look at the whole tree--it worked out which branch to look at."
This is interesting as this is the same way Correspondence GrandMasters play using chess engines. They force their chess engine to analyze the most promising variation [or variations] and discard the rest.
This is one reason a strong human player with a strong machine can usually beat a strong machine.
I don't think that correspondence players are allowed to use engines. That would defeat the purpose of playing correspondence chess. It's supposed to be about the art and beauty of the game. I love looking deep into a position (5-10 moves deep, into every candidate move variation) to find the best move. You're only cheating yourself out of that experience if you use an engine.
It depends on the CC league and tournament. A lot more are allowing it as it is impossible to enforce a rule like that. For instance, I believe ICCF allows their use.
chess.com does not find it impossible to enforce such a rule to a useful extent. Unassisted humans are distinguishable from computers, or strongly assisted humans with a reasonable amount of data.
ICCF made that decision a long while ago on the incorrect grounds that a ban could not work, and they became the International Centaur Chess Federation rather than (as previously) a human correspondence chess association.
Ah-hahahahaha!!!! You keep thinking that. They can't do squat to enforce it - the EGO wouldn't even if they could. Too many members would be gone and then the numbers would fall - with falling numbers comes falling ad revenue. The numbers are way over-inflated now, imagine if they had to kick out all the cheaters.
But I find it adorable that you think that way.
Rsava wrote:
Ah-hahahahaha!!!! You keep thinking that. They can't do squat to enforce it - the EGO wouldn't even if they could. Too many members would be gone and then the numbers would fall - with falling numbers comes falling ad revenue. The numbers are way over-inflated now, imagine if they had to kick out all the cheaters.
But I find it adorable that you think that way.
That's nonsense. If you knew anything about business, you'd know that allowing cheaters to remain would be a suicidal strategy. A chess site with a reputation for tolerating cheaters would lose members in droves.
Coincidentally, I tested this theory yesterday. I was matched against a player who just opened an account 5 days ago. I checked out his previous games and saw that he has already beaten an IM. So, I examined that game and it had several "computer-like" moves. So, I reported it as possible cheating. He was banned today. So, chess.com did an amazing job responding to my report quickly.
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Coincidentally, I tested this theory yesterday. I was matched against a player who just opened an account 5 days ago. I checked out his previous games and saw that he has already beaten an IM. So, I examined that game and it had several "computer-like" moves. So, I reported it as possible cheating. He was banned today. So, chess.com did an amazing job responding to my report quickly.
Good job by you and chess.com!
FBloggs wrote:
Rsava wrote:
Ah-hahahahaha!!!! You keep thinking that. They can't do squat to enforce it - the EGO wouldn't even if they could. Too many members would be gone and then the numbers would fall - with falling numbers comes falling ad revenue. The numbers are way over-inflated now, imagine if they had to kick out all the cheaters.
But I find it adorable that you think that way.
That's nonsense. If you knew anything about business, you'd know that allowing cheaters to remain would be a suicidal strategy. A chess site with a reputation for tolerating cheaters would lose members in droves.
You have no idea what I know about business so your statement is asinine. You assume something and we know that when you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ... well just you.
Thye have to let cheaters remain. There is a reason the membership level is so high. The ones who can't stand cheaters? They are here but they have stopped playing here.
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Coincidentally, I tested this theory yesterday. I was matched against a player who just opened an account 5 days ago. I checked out his previous games and saw that he has already beaten an IM. So, I examined that game and it had several "computer-like" moves. So, I reported it as possible cheating. He was banned today. So, chess.com did an amazing job responding to my report quickly.
"Several computer like moves" is not enough to ban anyone. If it were, everyone would be banned. I am sure everyone here has games with "several computer like moves".
Chess.com couldn't respond to something happening in their own mind quickly. But you all continue to think this way. The EGO needs the blind allegiance.
You all have fun with this, I'm going to unfollow now. If you really think chess.com takes cheating seriously you are sadly mistaken.
Jan 17, 2018
0
#2693
Rsava wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Rsava wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
AlphaZero looked at far fewer variations than stockfish. "Rather than look at the whole tree--it worked out which branch to look at."
This is interesting as this is the same way Correspondence GrandMasters play using chess engines. They force their chess engine to analyze the most promising variation [or variations] and discard the rest.
This is one reason a strong human player with a strong machine can usually beat a strong machine.
I don't think that correspondence players are allowed to use engines. That would defeat the purpose of playing correspondence chess. It's supposed to be about the art and beauty of the game. I love looking deep into a position (5-10 moves deep, into every candidate move variation) to find the best move. You're only cheating yourself out of that experience if you use an engine.
It depends on the CC league and tournament. A lot more are allowing it as it is impossible to enforce a rule like that. For instance, I believe ICCF allows their use.
chess.com does not find it impossible to enforce such a rule to a useful extent. Unassisted humans are distinguishable from computers, or strongly assisted humans with a reasonable amount of data.
ICCF made that decision a long while ago on the incorrect grounds that a ban could not work, and they became the International Centaur Chess Federation rather than (as previously) a human correspondence chess association.
Ah-hahahahaha!!!! You keep thinking that. They can't do squat to enforce it - the EGO wouldn't even if they could. Too many members would be gone and then the numbers would fall - with falling numbers comes falling ad revenue. The numbers are way over-inflated now, imagine if they had to kick out all the cheaters.
But I find it adorable that you think that way.
Weird, provably wrong opinion.
The first point is that the large majority of members are honest. chess.com has no need of a minority who are of net negative value to the site (because they reduce its value to the honest majority). Consequently, chess.com would like to kick every cheat off the site (and that includes paying cheats) and do their best to achieve that. And they are constantly doing so.
Secondly, anyone who has experience of turn-based chess since 2008 knows that things have changed a lot. Detection has got better and the life expectancy of a cheat is much shorter. It is amazing how much the top ranks have been thinned out.
I suggest you join the Cheating Forum, where you can learn more about who has been banned and even help detect them.
Not sure why I got notification of this since I followed the thread, just more chess.com garbage. But since I did ....
Weird, your opinion is probably wrong. See how easy that is? That is why it is a called an opinion. They can differ, Does not mean you get to tell me mine is wrong.
I belonged to the cheating forum group - for a number of years (I also had a Diamond membership, for a number of years). That is where I came to understand that chess.com doesn't do anything significant to combat cheating. They keep any discussion of it off the regular forums for some silly reason and force anyone who wishes to discuss it to join the "Cheating Forum". Then that is just a bunch of people debating back and forth what they would be doing in the forums if they weren't banned for doing it.
I met and made friends with quite a few people who belonged to the group that can prove it that chess.com could be doing a much better job to combat the problem. They have presented their findings and have been ignored. They no longer play games on this site against people they do not know. They use other sites (which cannot be named because ... EGO!!!!!!!) which take cheating much more seriously.
Oh, and I have experienced turn based chess since way before 2008. You do realize we have had the internet for far longer than that, right? One of the first things I did online was seek out online chess (way back in the day of 1200/2400 Baud modems and Gopher and Archie). I used ICS when it was free and used FICS after that. I see you use 2008 as your base year. That is also the year you joined chess.com. Hmmmm. Is that your first foray into turn based chess?
I see some sites that take cheating very seriously. I do not see that at chess.com. At chess.com I see them make a cursory stab at it to appear to be taking action. In reality, they do not.
Good day sir.
Unfollowing - AGAIN - maybe this time it will stick.
Jan 17, 2018
0
#2695
Rsava wrote:
Not sure why I got notification of this since I followed the thread, just more chess.com garbage. But since I did ....
Weird, your opinion is probably wrong. See how easy that is? That is why it is a called an opinion. They can differ, Does not mean you get to tell me mine is wrong.
I belonged to the cheating forum group - for a number of years (I also had a Diamond membership, for a number of years). That is where I came to understand that chess.com doesn't do anything significant to combat cheating. They keep any discussion of it off the regular forums for some silly reason and force anyone who wishes to discuss it to join the "Cheating Forum". Then that is just a bunch of people debating back and forth what they would be doing in the forums if they weren't banned for doing it.
I met and made friends with quite a few people who belonged to the group that can prove it that chess.com could be doing a much better job to combat the problem. They have presented their findings and have been ignored. They no longer play games on this site against people they do not know. They use other sites (which cannot be named because ... EGO!!!!!!!) which take cheating much more seriously.
Oh, and I have experienced turn based chess since way before 2008. You do realize we have had the internet for far longer than that, right? One of the first things I did online was seek out online chess (way back in the day of 1200/2400 Baud modems and Gopher and Archie). I used ICS when it was free and used FICS after that. I see you use 2008 as your base year. That is also the year you joined chess.com. Hmmmm. Is that your first foray into turn based chess?
I see some sites that take cheating very seriously. I do not see that at chess.com. At chess.com I see them make a cursory stab at it to appear to be taking action. In reality, they do not.
Good day sir.
Unfollowing - AGAIN - maybe this time it will stick.
Well, you won't see this, then.
You seem to have had a blind spot to the word "PROVABLY". Firstly, we see people getting banned every day by observation. Many of these are recorded in the Cheating Forum. You can pretend they don't exist (your "opinion"), but that doesn't change the facts.
Secondly, this site used to have thousands of players - mostly untitled - with online ratings over 2400. It now has 6 without OTB titles in that category. Can you think of one reason that is?
.. More, {mildly, off-topic}, 'grist' for the mill.
Rsava wrote:
Not sure why I got notification of this since I followed the thread, just more chess.com garbage. But since I did ....
Weird, your opinion is probably wrong. See how easy that is? That is why it is a called an opinion. They can differ, Does not mean you get to tell me mine is wrong.
I belonged to the cheating forum group - for a number of years (I also had a Diamond membership, for a number of years). That is where I came to understand that chess.com doesn't do anything significant to combat cheating. They keep any discussion of it off the regular forums for some silly reason and force anyone who wishes to discuss it to join the "Cheating Forum". Then that is just a bunch of people debating back and forth what they would be doing in the forums if they weren't banned for doing it.
I met and made friends with quite a few people who belonged to the group that can prove it that chess.com could be doing a much better job to combat the problem. They have presented their findings and have been ignored. They no longer play games on this site against people they do not know. They use other sites (which cannot be named because ... EGO!!!!!!!) which take cheating much more seriously.
Oh, and I have experienced turn based chess since way before 2008. You do realize we have had the internet for far longer than that, right? One of the first things I did online was seek out online chess (way back in the day of 1200/2400 Baud modems and Gopher and Archie). I used ICS when it was free and used FICS after that. I see you use 2008 as your base year. That is also the year you joined chess.com. Hmmmm. Is that your first foray into turn based chess?
I see some sites that take cheating very seriously. I do not see that at chess.com. At chess.com I see them make a cursory stab at it to appear to be taking action. In reality, they do not.
Good day sir.
Unfollowing - AGAIN - maybe this time it will stick.
Maybe it's just because you suck at chess and have such an enormous ego that you believe that anyone who beats you has to be cheating. lol I personally haven't found cheating to be a big problem on here. I was suspicious of one player, reported him and now he's banned. Somebody has to be the whistle-blower though. You can't expect chess.com to analyze every single game played, every day, and catch every cheater. Use common sense and be selective. Dont report every single game that you lose and expect them to ban everyone that beat you. lol Also, don't just whine about it when you have a serious concern.
With regards to using chess playing programs and reporting those who use them. I have a friend who is a very strong titled player, he told me he is reported for using 'engines' about once a month. Of course, he never does, he simply plays out positions which merit it, resulting in him making the 'best' move most of the time.
He also told me of players who play often as many as 200 games at once, using opening lists as far as possible then offering a draw to their opponents. They will win enough games by players letting their time run out to keep their rating up to 2000 or so
chessspy1 wrote:
He also told me of players who play often as many as 200 games at once, using opening lists as far as possible then offering a draw to their opponents. They will win enough games by players letting their time run out to keep their rating up to 2000 or so
That is so ridiculous. What could anyone gain by doing that? A false sense of pride? Bragging rights? I just don't understand that mindset.
Going back to an earlier post, I agree that 'solved' in strict terms has a definite meaning with regard to board games. My point earlier was that if and when programs can reliably beat unaided humans in every game, as black or white, then the game is for all intents and purposes 'solved'.