Will computers ever solve chess?

btickler
troy7915 wrote:
 

  You forgot what happened, so let me refresh your memory; the original point was that Kramnik does not deserve a place among the greats because of the terrible mate-in-one blunder. That was the point. Then you came along and introduced another point: ‘yeah, but at least he had the balls (your expression) to take on the machines when no one else would dare.’ 

  So, first of all, daring to take on the machines doesn’t place him among the great players. That was illogical. Secondly, I took on your newly introduced point of labeling him ‘brave’ for doing that, while being scared of the things that really mattered to him as a chess player and as a human being during that time. Being perceived ‘brave’ was a misperception, for he was brave in things that didn’t mater while being scared and a coward in things that did. 

  In other words, your point didn’t affect the point that was being made, and in itself it was not an accurate one as well.

I guess that is what you think you were talking about.  This thread has nothing to do with who are the greats of chess, though.  You made some throwaway comment about Kramnik in the context of GMs who played a role in "the rise of the machines", as you put it.  That is is not the topic of this thread, either.  We don't really compete with engines at this point.  That was all you. 

I simply responded in a P.S. that Kramnik at least bad the balls to play the last of the even odds engine matches after you unilaterally called him out for a blunder in 2006 for no apparent reason wink.png.  It was an illogical non-sequitur.  I pointed that out.  As I said, live with it.  Nobody else is involved and we disagree.  You are not really going to get anywhere by throwing out more crap...I'm not as easily befuddled as your normal adversaries on this thread wink.png...

Elroch

Surprisingly to some, Kramnik achieved the second highest objective quality of play as measured by Stockfish running on a supercomputer according to the most detailed analysis in 2013 research. Also surprisingly (to me), Fischer was third and Kasparov only fourth, despite having the second highest FIDE rating and persistent dominance of the chess world over a long career. The strongest player of all time is the present world champion, Magnus Carlsen.

The article has a reliable prediction of match scores between all of the top players over history.

Who is the master? (ICGA journal)

See also summary on wikipedia.

troy7915

 Playing a game in a tournament and playing strong or perfect chess are two different things. What matters more are novelties, which when one is caught unprepared are hard to respond to and calculate in real time over the board.

 The study authors themselves suggested that other engines may be used, in order to find evaluations  that are ‘program dependent’ and those who are independent of the program being used.

 Also, what Stockfish discovers today (or in 2013) may be invalidated in the future. There is no final authority in chess, just yet.

troy7915
btickler wrote:  
 troy7915 wrote:
 

  You forgot what happened, so let me refresh your memory; the original point was that Kramnik does not deserve a place among the greats because of the terrible mate-in-one blunder. That was the point. Then you came along and introduced another point: ‘yeah, but at least he had the balls (your expression) to take on the machines when no one else would dare.’ 

  So, first of all, daring to take on the machines doesn’t place him among the great players. That was illogical. Secondly, I took on your newly introduced point of labeling him ‘brave’ for doing that, while being scared of the things that really mattered to him as a chess player and as a human being during that time. Being perceived ‘brave’ was a misperception, for he was brave in things that didn’t mater while being scared and a coward in things that did. 

  In other words, your point didn’t affect the point that was being made, and in itself it was not an accurate one as well.

I guess that is what you think you were talking about.  This thread has nothing to do with who are the greats of chess, though.  You made some throwaway comment about Kramnik in the context of GMs who played a role in "the rise of the machines", as you put it.  That is is not the topic of this thread, either.  We don't really compete with engines at this point.  That was all you. 

I simply responded in a P.S. that Kramnik at least bad the balls to play the last of the even odds engine matches after you unilaterally called him out for a blunder in 2006 for no apparent reason .  It was an illogical non-sequitur.  I pointed that out.  As I said, live with it.  Nobody else is involved and we disagree.  You are not really going to get anywhere by throwing out more crap...I'm not as easily befuddled as your normal adversaries on this thread ...

 

  Regardless of the topic of the thread, the subject I was talking about was Kasparov vs Deep Blue. You decided to chime in and throw your 2 cents about why Kasparov lost. I’ve explained about some things that happened behind close doors and some weird coincidences. You claimed that until Wikipedia mentions it, it’s not a fact. Then I looked it up and discovered that Wikipedia had already incorporated that fact. 

 Not having much to say you threw in Kramnik. This argument had nothing to do with Kasparov vs Deep Blue. Completely illogical. Nevertheless I accepted it as part of the discussion, while the argument that ‘at least he had balls’ was dismantled by the fact that fundamentally he was a coward.

  Kasparov vs Deep Blue was not the subject of the thread: then don’t participate, only to claim later that it wasn’t the subject of this thread: you knew that from the beginning; if you really think that Kasparov vs Deep Blue isn’t worth discussing, then don’t engage: once you did, going back to point out that it wasn’t the subject of the thread (while you engaged in that discussion) is another illogical behavior.

Dodger111

Looks like Alpha Zero has, or is damn close to it.

troy7915

That’s questionable. In the end, it may be brute force that counts more than pattern recognition, in a game where seeing one more move ahead can make the difference between losing and winning. Pattern recognition works better in GO, where the idea of using a similar algorithm (based on deep learning, along with the Monte Carlo tree search, used for a long time in GO programs) came from.

  After all, the Deep Mind division of Google seems reluctant to enter Alpha Zero in the World Chess Computer Championships, as it cannot do that in TCEC Premier Division, due to proprietary custom hardware, in a competition where all computers use uniform hardware. 

  But LCZero, following in the footsteps of Alpha Zero, can and, indeed, is participating in the TCEC: the other day it lost to Komodo, I think, but right now is in second place, 21/2 points behind Stockfish. We shall see if programs armed with strong opening books and more calculation power will trump Leela’s handicap in  speed of calculation. The proverbial ‘dumb and faster’ approach may still prevail.

  Either way, humans stand to gain more from Alpha Zero ‘s approach to chess, as they are approaching the game in a similar fashion, due to their very limited calculating powers. But for the game itself, programs like Stockfish and its future versions may be more relevant in the end.

btickler
troy7915 wrote:

I’ve explained about some things that happened behind close doors and some weird coincidences.  You claimed that until Wikipedia mentions it, it’s not a fact.

[...]

Not having much to say you threw in Kramnik. 

Ummm, no and no. 

1.  Never said anything of the sort.  You didn't "explain" anything that is substantiated anywhere as fact.  That was the point.  All I said was that if your interview rumors were backed up, they would have made their way to Wikipedia's Deep Blue vs. Kasparov entry by now.  But there was nothing (go ahead and link your "discovery", but it better not be a new edit to the Wikipedia entry), so it hasn't.

2.  *You* brought up Kramnik, at least in terms of his role in the ascent of engines over GMs.  If I said anything about Kramnik at all, it was probably indirect, referring to Kramnik's Berlin defense as an example of the kind of ego that drives Kasparov to self-destruct at times, as he did against Deep Blue.

You're wrong.  It's okay, it happens not that infrequently with you on this thread.  Even when you are on the right side of the argument, your reasoning is often circumlocutive and suspect.  If you were on the Ponz side of argument, I'd probably have defenestrated you long ago.

Speaking of suspect...I didn't say anything about Kasparov vs. Deep Blue being off-topic...it relates enough to be worth discussing.  It was your disingenuous characterization of our discussion as being about Kramnik and/or Kasparov being among the greats of chess (sans any engine/AI on-topic context) that was off topic.

troy7915

 Again, I didn’t brought up Kramnik. The discussion was about Kasparov vs Deep Blue. I simply mentioned the game where he lost in 19 moves, the very last one, to somebody else. You jumped in and started the whole thing, Kasparov vs Deep Blue.  

  Secondly, Wikipedia still has that explanation that I gave you. Somebody’s suffering from amnesia: I told you the exact thing 2-3 months ago, you said you read it, and now you are saying that it’s not there. So I check again, same spot, same explanation given as a fact. Either amnesia or superficiality. It is exactly the same thing as the first time. 

  I never said the discussion was about Kramnik. The discussion was about Kasparov vs Deep Blue. I offered an explanation, it was backed up in the Wikipedia, you asked for Wikipedia, it was there, it is still there for the non-superficial, case closed. The Spanish GM admitted on his own that he did change the opening books on the morning of the last game, you came up with all sorts of scenarios and in the end invoked Wikipedia. It turned out it was there, still there, then you forget the whole thing and start over like it wasn’t there. Nothing changed: it’s still there. The case is closed.

  The other peripheral issue was brought up by you , which I have treated separately having no connection to the Deep Blue match. And separately the point was missing, as having balls was false, in the end. In a desperate attempt you come with another Wikipedia entry of an explanation to why things are not black and white and a philosophical explanation of various meaningless theoretical arguments. That is for superficial brains which don’t dig deep enough, remaining in a maze of confusion. Had they gone deep enough, it is black and white: one either sees something, or they don’t. But the blind likes to rationalize their lack of seeing. The blind thinks they can see and then they invoke a grey area. That is an illusion, in a non-technical field, which field is always behind the technical one.

 

btickler
troy7915 wrote:

 Again, I didn’t brought up Kramnik. The discussion was about Kasparov vs Deep Blue. I simply mentioned the game where he lost in 19 moves, the very last one, to somebody else. You jumped in and started the whole thing, Kasparov vs Deep Blue.  

  Secondly, Wikipedia still has that explanation that I gave you. Somebody’s suffering from amnesia: I told you the exact thing 2-3 months ago, you said you read it, and now you are saying that it’s not there. So I check again, same spot, same explanation given as a fact. Either amnesia or superficiality. It is exactly the same thing as the first time. 

  I never said the discussion was about Kramnik. The discussion was about Kasparov vs Deep Blue. I offered an explanation, it was backed up in the Wikipedia, you asked for Wikipedia, it was there, it is still there for the non-superficial, case closed. The Spanish GM admitted on his own that he did change the opening books on the morning of the last game, you came up with all sorts of scenarios and in the end invoked Wikipedia. It turned out it was there, still there, then you forget the whole thing and start over like it wasn’t there. Nothing changed: it’s still there. The case is closed.

  The other peripheral issue was brought up by you , which I have treated separately having no connection to the Deep Blue match. And separately the point was missing, as having balls was false, in the end. In a desperate attempt you come with another Wikipedia entry of an explanation to why things are not black and white and a philosophical explanation of various meaningless theoretical arguments. That is for superficial brains which don’t dig deep enough, remaining in a maze of confusion. Had they gone deep enough, it is black and white: one either sees something, or they don’t. But the blind likes to rationalize their lack of seeing. The blind thinks they can see and then they invoke a grey area. That is an illusion, in a non-technical field, which field is always behind the technical one.

You are so full of it.  We're not talking about the variation being added to the opening database (which is there), we're talking about your "proof", the interview with the Spanish Gm that cannot be produced, and your BS about 2 spies being hired by IBM and given instructions to eavesdrop on Kasparov's team. 

You clearly would know what I referring to when I said "All I said was that if your interview rumors were backed up [...]" since you remember this all so well.  It would be hard to forget such a definitive and accusatory claim made without any evidence anyway, so if you choose to gloss over it now, you must have some other reason for doing so...perhaps you've realized it was dubious all along?

troy7915

It’s not my job to show the blind the proof he asks for: the proof exists and I have seen it. But the lazy ones wait for Wikipedia to produce it, and in the meantime have nothing better to do than to fantasize about various scenarios. Illescas did give that interview in ‘09. 

 Not my intention to show it to the blind , when they can look and see  for themselves. Also not my intention to convince anybody of anything: I’m only interested in facts. Fantasies like where he might have heard the story, speculations on making money on it, or not speaking English as one of the reasons why no one heard about the story, supposedly prior to Illescas—are all meaningless.

btickler
troy7915 wrote:

It’s not my job to show the blind the proof he asks for: the proof exists and I have seen it. But the lazy ones wait for Wikipedia to produce it, and in the meantime have nothing better to do than to fantasize about various scenarios. Illescas did give that interview in ‘09. 

 Not my intention to show it to the blind , when they can look and see  for themselves. Also not my intention to convince anybody of anything: I’m only interested in facts. Fantasies like where he might have heard the story, speculations on making money on it, or not speaking English as one of the reasons why no one heard about the story, supposedly prior to Illescas—are all meaningless.

Thank you for showing us all that Russian spies being hired by IBM are facts that you consider to be key in Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue, when a desktop PC running Fritz would have whupped him a few years later.  Surely Deep Blue had no chance against this towering giant of humanity, and IBM knew it...oh, the depths to which they sank to bring him down, ironically not even understanding how engine advances based on their model would make the match a moot point so soon afterwards.  It was tragic and clearly so unnecessary...

This really sheds a light on your credibility level for future discussions.  

hitthepin
Bumping the #14 thread so that it’s easier for me.
hitthepin
Not before this thread hits top ten.
hitthepin
Possibly.
fuggycolor

This isn’t popular thread anymore

Ziryab

it will be again

phillidor5949

Hans Berliner, a correspondence Master/Champion, wrote a book in 1999 called The System in which he puts forth analysis of various continuations after 1.d4 , depending on Black's adopted defense, in hopes of transmuting White's half move advantage, into a space advantage, and eventually into a Win for White. Note: Weaver Adams tried looking for a forced win after 1.e4, rather than Berliner's 1.d4.

Anyway, here I've assembled some contemporary computer analysis of Berliner's 1999 published analysis to see how it holds up and whether White's advantage is, in fact, increased:

http://oeco.hopto.org/mediawiki/index.php/Berliner,_Hans_-_The_System
*No ads, no sign-up... Just a hobby of mine that I make available to everyone.