Forums

Will computers ever solve chess?

Sort:
Avatar of flannelsock
flannelsock
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1261

i spoke the truth of otb play among people.

 

this cannot be denied.

 

i do not need to "exhale". 

 

someone here needs to sleep with a woman for warmth and not a toaster.

Avatar of JeffGreen333
JeffGreen333
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1262
ponz111 wrote:

I once played at above the 2600 level and am pretty qualified to look at most games and show/find the mistakes.

Regarding moves of very strong engines--they rarely make mistakes.

However i have found mistakes that the very strongest chess engines made--sequences of moves which the chess engines did not figure out.

Yes, some humans can play positionally very well.

My premise was not about how well or poorly i play--it was the fact that for a 1000 years nobody has found a win for White [or Black] from the starting position and that is an indication [not 100% proof] that the game of chess is a draw. There is a lot of other evidence that the game of chess is a draw with optimum play.

I think you meant to say 1600 .... not 2600.   Your ratings on chess.com do not support you ever being anywhere close to 2600.   

Avatar of JeffGreen333
JeffGreen333
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1263
moldycrow wrote:

i spoke the truth of otb play among people.

 

this cannot be denied.

 

i do not need to "exhale". 

 

someone here needs to sleep with a woman for warmth and not a toaster.

Some of your posts contain the rantings of a crazy man.  Much like Bobby Fischer, right before he died.   

Avatar of ponz111
ponz111
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1264

Another strong indication that the "solution to chess" is a draw is the opinion of the best players in the world. If you asked the top players in the world if they thought chess is a draw with optimum play--more than 99% would say they believe that is correct. 

Almost all or all grandmasters know chess is a draw with best play.

Avatar of ponz111
ponz111
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1265
JeffGreen333 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

I once played at above the 2600 level and am pretty qualified to look at most games and show/find the mistakes.

Regarding moves of very strong engines--they rarely make mistakes.

However i have found mistakes that the very strongest chess engines made--sequences of moves which the chess engines did not figure out.

Yes, some humans can play positionally very well.

My premise was not about how well or poorly i play--it was the fact that for a 1000 years nobody has found a win for White [or Black] from the starting position and that is an indication [not 100% proof] that the game of chess is a draw. There is a lot of other evidence that the game of chess is a draw with optimum play.

I think you meant to say 1600 .... not 2600.   Your ratings on chess.com do not support you ever being anywhere close to 2600.   

My rating on chess.com is NOT my rating. Someone played a few games on my account--without my knowledge and that 1600 + rating is his rating.

[by the way to get that rating he had all wins so chess.com ratings are often not accurate]

I currently  have an inactive ICCF rating of 2525 but it has been higher.

Avatar of flannelsock
flannelsock
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1266

the word "draw".

 

in this cacaphony of posts it means that intellignece will seek a communion of recoginition.

 

the computer will never give in to man on the grounds set by the computer.

 

the human, painting the sistine chapel on a scaffold and pissing nine floors down as he paints will never stop seeking beauty.

 

the computer will never know beauty but it may imitate man by ascening a scaffold a dripping liquid as did M.

 

no.

 

my posts are not the rantings of a crazy man.  and i will never break 1150 in the chess rarings.

 

but i see truth.

Avatar of flannelsock
flannelsock
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1267

sorry for the misspelling...i do not use spellcheck to hide my idiocy.

Avatar of JeffGreen333
JeffGreen333
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1268
ponz111 wrote:

My rating on chess.com is NOT my rating. Someone played a few games on my account--without my knowledge and that 1600 + rating is his rating.

[by the way to get that rating he had all wins so chess.com ratings are often not accurate]

I currently  have an inactive ICCF rating of 2525 but it has been higher.

If you're telling the truth (which I seriously doubt), you should open a new account and start over.   Nobody is ever going to believe that you used to be a 2500 or 2600 player with that low of a TT rating and that phony-sounding excuse.   Many people don't believe that I am an 1800+ player, with a TT rating of only 1400+.   That's only a 400 point difference though (and I explained why there's such a divergence on another thread).   You're talking about a 1400 point difference between 1200 and 2600.  I'm just not buying it.  

Avatar of ponz111
ponz111
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1269
JeffGreen333 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

My rating on chess.com is NOT my rating. Someone played a few games on my account--without my knowledge and that 1600 + rating is his rating.

[by the way to get that rating he had all wins so chess.com ratings are often not accurate]

I currently  have an inactive ICCF rating of 2525 but it has been higher.

If you're telling the truth (which I seriously doubt), you should open a new account and start over.   Nobody is ever going to believe that you used to be a 2500 or 2600 player with that low of a TT rating and that phony-sounding excuse.

My record against masters is 73%. My record against grandmasters is 100%

I do not really care that much that you don't believe.

i do not wish to start a new account and lose dozens of games posted and hundreds of discusssions posted.

Avatar of TeamCobra
TeamCobra
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1270
Bruh how do you have a better record against grandmasters then masters...
Avatar of ponz111
ponz111
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1271
TeamCobra wrote:
Bruh how do you have a better record against grandmasters then masters...

i have a better record against grandmaster than masters as i have only played a few grandmasters in my life. if i had played more--the result, no doubt, would have been different.

i have played against many masters and only a few grandmasters. 

Avatar of ponz111
ponz111
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1272

chess engines are not gods. Here is a puzzle i solved in 7 minututes by just looking at the board which the very best chess engines cannot seem to solve:

White to move--find the best follow up [the best moves]

Avatar of yanzhichen2007
yanzhichen2007
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1273

No.chess was created by humans, engines will never solve it 

Avatar of DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1274
JeffGreen333 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

My rating on chess.com is NOT my rating. Someone played a few games on my account--without my knowledge and that 1600 + rating is his rating.

[by the way to get that rating he had all wins so chess.com ratings are often not accurate]

I currently  have an inactive ICCF rating of 2525 but it has been higher.

If you're telling the truth (which I seriously doubt), you should open a new account and start over.   Nobody is ever going to believe that you used to be a 2500 or 2600 player with that low of a TT rating and that phony-sounding excuse.   Many people don't believe that I am an 1800+ player, with a TT rating of only 1400+.   That's only a 400 point difference though (and I explained why there's such a divergence on another thread).   You're talking about a 1400 point difference between 1200 and 2600.  I'm just not buying it.  

Ponz's credentials are fairly well established.  He played at least at the CM master level OTB, and at the GM level in correspondence, and this was documented several times here in the forums long before you ever showed up wink.png.  The problem is that his abilities have waned quite a bit due to his own admitted dementia.

If you are still skeptical, here's Ponz's win in the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Championship Final (1989)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1667050

 

Note how this was 1989.  No engines at the top levels of play yet.

 

In any case, human credentials don't mean much in this discussion.  Engines have only just begun to widen the gap between human play and computer play.  Carlsen could barely explain a TCEC game between Stockfish and Komodo if he tried.  For many moves, he would have not the foggiest notion why X was better than Y, was better than Z.

This ability to kind of follow along with engine games will be short-lived.  A decade or two at most.  Once engine developers start bootstrapping purely from engine vs. engine results and stop tweaking the same old human-derived valuations for material and positional considerations, engines will make a quantum leap in ability that will leave super GMs looking like toddlers on the board.

Still, though, they will not be able to even make a dent in solving chess.

Avatar of JeffGreen333
JeffGreen333
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1275
btickler wrote:

Ponz's credentials are fairly well established.  He played at least at the CM master level OTB, and at the GM level in correspondence, and this was documented several times here in the forums long before you ever showed up .  The problem is that his abilities have waned quite a bit due to his own admitted dementia.

In any case, human credentials don't mean much in this discussion.  Engines have only just begun to widen the gap between human play and computer play.  Carlsen could barely explain a TCEC game between Stockfish and Komodo if he tried.  For many moves, he would have not the foggiest notion why X was better than Y, was better than Z.

This ability to kind of follow along with engine games will be short-lived.  A decade or two at most.  Once engine developers start bootstrapping purely from engine vs. engine results and stop tweaking the same old human-derived valuations for material and positional considerations, engines will make a quantum leap in ability that will leave super GMs looking like toddlers on the board.

Still, though, they will not be able to even make a dent in solving chess.

In that case, he really needs to get his ratings up.   That's all most of us have to base his skills on.   His ridiculously low TT rating, especially.   I'm working on my own TT rating, because several players have made fun of it.   It's embarrassing.   I finally figured out that if I take my time on them, I get them right about 95% of the time.   Now my TT rating is rising, at least.   I'm just a slow thinker, but am not THAT bad at tactics.  It probably should be at around 1600-1700.   

Avatar of DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1276
JeffGreen333 wrote:
btickler wrote:

Ponz's credentials are fairly well established.  He played at least at the CM master level OTB, and at the GM level in correspondence, and this was documented several times here in the forums long before you ever showed up .  The problem is that his abilities have waned quite a bit due to his own admitted dementia.

In any case, human credentials don't mean much in this discussion.  Engines have only just begun to widen the gap between human play and computer play.  Carlsen could barely explain a TCEC game between Stockfish and Komodo if he tried.  For many moves, he would have not the foggiest notion why X was better than Y, was better than Z.

This ability to kind of follow along with engine games will be short-lived.  A decade or two at most.  Once engine developers start bootstrapping purely from engine vs. engine results and stop tweaking the same old human-derived valuations for material and positional considerations, engines will make a quantum leap in ability that will leave super GMs looking like toddlers on the board.

Still, though, they will not be able to even make a dent in solving chess.

In that case, he really needs to get his ratings up.   That's all most of us have to base his skills on.   His ridiculously low TT rating, especially.   I'm working on my own TT rating, because several players have made fun of it.   It's embarrassing.   I finally figured out that if I take my time on them, I get them right about 95% of the time.   Now my TT rating is rising, at least.   I'm just a slow thinker, but am not THAT bad at tactics.  It probably should be at around 1600-1700.   

TT ratings are a joke, hopelessly skewed by cheaters, and online ratings in general are meaningless.  A good 20%+ are engine users.  You will hear about 5%...that's complete BS.  Chess.com would rather that people not know how rampant cheating is here.  

 

When the now defunct VCL (votechess league) started doing an extensive analysis of the top 100 rated teams, they stopped after the first 20 or so because it was so disheartening and pointless to go on.  Every single one of the teams had engine matchup rates that far eclipse Carlsen's best days...

 

Heck they had to sweep not one but several incidents of engine use by titled players in the PRO league under the table.  Games were quietly forfeited and schedules rearranged to hide the abuse. 

 

The only embarrassment here would be to actually hold your own or anybody else's feet to the fire because some internet troll mocked your/their meaningless online ratings wink.png.

Avatar of ponz111
ponz111
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1277

Jeff

There are many things far more important than getting my ratings on chess.com up. 

I do not need to try to "prove" myself by getting my TT chess ratings up to satisfy you.

If you look at my games almost all of them were not rated but i did ok in them. [note, almost all were played with the Black pieces]

As i said before, [and apparently you still do not believe me] the rating posted is NOT my rating. Another person played on my account--without my knowledge at the time--and the ratings posted is HIS rating. 

Why should i get my rating up--when it is not my rating in the first place?

Why do you care?

Avatar of JeffGreen333
JeffGreen333
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1278
btickler wrote:

 If you are still skeptical, here's Ponz's win in the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Championship Final (1989)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1667050

 

Note how this was 1989.  No engines at the top levels of play yet.

His opponent blundered on move #25 though.   Instead of trading rooks, he abandoned the open file for a blocked file that had no play on it.  So, the jury is still out as to whether Ponz was that good or his opponent was just that bad.   The fact that David Taylor made it to the finals says something though.   Are you 100% sure that Ponz is really David C. Taylor?   Also, there were pretty good computers around in 1989.   Nowhere close to 3000 rated, but probably around 2000-2400.   

Avatar of DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1279
JeffGreen333 wrote:
btickler wrote:

 If you are still skeptical, here's Ponz's win in the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Championship Final (1989)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1667050

 

Note how this was 1989.  No engines at the top levels of play yet.

His opponent blundered on move #25 though.   Instead of trading rooks, he abandoned the open file for a blocked file that had no play on it.  So, the jury is still out as to whether Ponz was that good or his opponent was just that bad.   The fact that David Taylor made it to the finals says something though.   Are you 100% sure that Ponz is really David C. Taylor?   Also, there were pretty good computers around in 1989.   Nowhere close to 3000 rated, but probably around 2000-2400.   

Lol.

Ponz knows quite a bit about the Ponziani, which seems to support his authorship claim, but regardless, the burden of proof would be upon you to disprove his identity, not him to further defend it.  As I stated, his credentials has been "tested" several times before.  He's got an order of magnitude more credibility, in this case, than you have.

You might as well be a crowd bystander in St. Louis saying "I don't think that's Nakamura, he doesn't look like he does in his chess.com avatar...have you checked his ID?".  Why would anyone listen to you?

In the context of this argument, though, Ponz's rating gives him only slightly more credibility than a good club player.  2400 or 1800, neither can pretend to truly fathom 3300+ play.  We can play along with engines and make educated guesses, or confirm "blunders" (cough) as you did for that 1989 game...but that's like Norman Chad talking about how Poker stars are playing hands at the WSOP.  He has no friggin' idea what's actually going on.  He's just entertaining the masses that also have no idea what's going on.

Avatar of JeffGreen333
JeffGreen333
Jul 7, 2017
0
#1280
btickler wrote:

TT ratings are a joke, hopelessly skewed by cheaters, and online ratings in general are meaningless.  A good 20%+ are engine users.  You will hear about 5%...that's complete BS.  Chess.com would rather that people not know how rampant cheating is here.  

 

When the now defunct VCL (votechess league) started doing an extensive analysis of the top 100 rated teams, they stopped after the first 20 or so because it was so disheartening and pointless to go on.  Every single one of the teams had engine matchup rates that far eclipse Carlsen's best days...

 

Heck they had to sweep not one but several incidents of engine use by titled players in the PRO league under the table.  Games were quietly forfeited and schedules rearranged to hide the abuse. 

 

The only embarrassment here would be to actually hold your own or anybody else's feet to the fire because some internet troll mocked your/their meaningless online ratings .

That is really sad.   I never cheat, so I hate to hear that so many others do.   I want to have accurate ratings and see genuine improvement in my game.   I work hard for that.   There's one good thing about it though.   If 20% of the players are cheating and I'm not, then I must be even better than my ratings suggest.   I'm probably beating most of the players and only losing to 3000-rated computers.   wink.png   I always wondered why I'm so much better OTB than I am online.  Now I know why.   I once won 60 games in a row, OTB.   I'm very proud of that feat.   They can never take that away from me.