Chess Forum
uskidscompute.com << online chess - < chess - chess > - chess online >>
| From | Message |
| Posted by youngglor uskidscompute.com 10/16/2003 10:33:51 Play online chess |  Subject: Humans vs ComputersMessage: Hey all, im just trying to start out a post about this subject that I recently read at chessbase.com... Computers have been getting stronger every year...who will win this fight??? All opinions are welcome, please post your thoughts. Cheers |
| Posted by silverwolfwsc uskidscompute.com 10/16/2003 12:10:01 Play online chess | computers Message: humans arent advancing at the same rate as computers. As computers will continue to advance, and search deeper into each position, they will eventually find a forced win much earlier than a human opponent. I dont think it will be happening in the next few years, but probably within the decade. |
| Posted by wizard_of_odd uskidscompute.com 10/16/2003 14:08:30 Play online chess | Humans vs Computers?? Message: This is really a nonissue. Computers can beat almost any human alive. They will always be winning this fight. A computer is a tool that does what human programmers tell it to do. For this reason, I don't really see the issue as Humans vs. Computers; there is no real fight that needs to be won. That said, you can always dumb computers down and win against them. If I had to pick a winner, I'd bet on those wily human beings in the long run. The short bet, however, goes on the computer. :) *Wiz* ——— The Great London Chess Debate — The former world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik won the London Chess Classic, a tournament that brought the English capital close to its former glory. London was the world chess center in the mid-19th century when the first two important tournaments were organized: the knockout event in 1851 and the round-robin in 1862, both won by the German master Adolf Anderssen, one of the greatest chess attackers. Did the current tournament eclipse the events played roughly 150 years ago? Anderssen did not like the playing conditions in 1851. The chairs and tables were too low for him, the chessboard too big and the players were confined to a small place. But the German chess master would have ... |
| Posted by youngglor uskidscompute.com 10/16/2003 16:09:55 Play online chess | Message: I mean the strongest human and the strongest computer in a chess match... ——— Chess: Why resign with two queens? — Despite the extra queen, Howell was in trouble and when he missed a miracle defence Kramnik seized his chance. This is the final position of the chess game we considered last week. Kramnik has just played his rook to c8 and Howell promptly resigned. Why? RB: Yes, why did Black resign? With two queens on the board you'd think he'd be fine. But what are his options here? I can see two. The first doesn't seem to help Black: 1…Rxc8 2 Qxc8+ Kh7 3 a8=Q when, with the threat of mate on h8, Black has to continue 3…Qxa8 and after the recapture White is a knight and a pawn up. The alternative is 1…Qxb8 2 axb8=Q Rxc8 3 Qxc8+ Kh7 4 Qf5+, when White is again a knight and pawn to ... |
| Posted by anaxagoras uskidscompute.com 10/16/2003 16:20:05 Play online chess | Message: You must also stipulate *when* youngglor. The strongest human player ever will probably be comparable to a lot of the other great chess players we've already seen. The strongest computer program is yet to be seen, and its potential asymptotically approaches a forced win from move one. Now if they could just teach a computer to think out its own opening instead of relying on the book... then I'd really be convinced. Other than that, the issue isn't interesting. ——— Making the Case for, and Against, Chess as an Olympic Sport — Could chess be an Olympic sport? Such an idea may seem absurd to some people, but the World Chess Federation has been lobbying the International Olympic Committee for years to include chess in the Games. As part of its efforts, the federation even instituted drug testing to bring chess into compliance with the committee’s rules. (Players have grumbled about this, pointing out that aside from caffeine, there are no drugs that can plausibly help them play better.) In making a case for chess, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the president of the federation, has said that curling is essentially “chess on ice.” The Olympic committee has granted the federation status as a Recognized International Sports Federation, but ... |
| Posted by youngglor uskidscompute.com 10/16/2003 16:46:19 Play online chess | Message: Sorry...well if i would stipulate "when" i would probably say the next decade or so... p.s. I do agree the subject isn't that interesting but i just wanted to make these forums a lively place. Im used to RPG forums where there is a constant flow of posts...if you understand what i mean. Im going to start another post, maybe more interesting... Cheers ——— On Chess: Game is brainy mix of theory, practice — The frequent emphasis on rote learning is decried by critics of formal education. Learning is often reduced to reproducible sound bites amenable to multiple-choice testing. The result can be a learned incapacity in making complex decisions demanding fluid thinking and purposeful action. We often hear from those who use chess as an educational tool that “Chess makes kids smarter.” But why? Chess, like other games, is a testing ground that combines theory and action. It is no accident that the best performers in sports are often effective men and women who achieve new successes when their athletic careers are over. Playing chess involves a continuous mental process of applying and modifying concepts to ... |
| Posted by caldazar uskidscompute.com 10/16/2003 17:03:28 Play online chess | Message: Assuming the methodology for programming computer chess engines does not change significantly (a very poor assumption), humans should always win out. Despite the fact that computers are phenomenal calculators, then don't do much else. Brute force only takes you as far as you can calculate. If the point of an idea is 15 moves away, a computer that can only reasonably calculate up to 25 ply won't understand it and will simply misevaluate the position. True, computing power is always increasing, but there's a whole lot of ply to cover between the position after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 and a 4-against-3 pawn situation vs. 2 bishops endgame, and each additional ply requires (approximately) exponentially more calculating power to achieve than the previous one. Beating a computer consistently is simple (not easy, but simple). You spend the time and keep playing games until you win one. Then you play the exact same moves every time thereafter under the same time conditions. The computer will repeat the same moves over and over and lose every time thereafter. Computer engines (currently) do not have the ability to significantly alter their own evaluative functions (although they do have ways to self-modify their own opening book to a limited extent). If, in a position, a computer misevaluates an exchange sacrifice, it will misevaluate the sacrifice in the exact same way every time you set up the exact same position. That's why it's so important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a particular engine when you use it as a tool; you have to know in which situations you can trust the analysis it spits out and when you have to ignore the machine. Of course, in real man vs. machine matches, the programmers tweak the engine after each game to compensate for the computer engine's lack of learning ability. But now you're talking about man vs. the learning/understanding of man+calculating power of machine. Not terribly surprising that the solo man does not necessarily fare well. I'm hoping this will change in the near future, that programmers will develop efficient ways to incorporate learning and adaptive algorithms into their programs. I think that'd be something really interesting to see and maybe I can finally get Fritz to stop grabbing material when it should be playing dynamically. ——— Vlad Kramnik sweeps past Englishmen en route to winning London Chess Classic — Beating up the Brits was the key for Russia's Vlad Kramnik, who won this week's London Chess Classic narrowly from the US No1 Hikaru Nakamura and the world No1 Magnus Carlsen. Kramnik made a clean sweep of the four Englishmen. His key game was in the penultimate round against Luke McShane who till then was a contender for the €50,000 first prize and still finished a strong €15,000 richer fourth. Carlsen was only third, yet the combined elite chess events at Moscow last month and London boosted the 21-year-old Norwegian's status as top dog, second only to the retired Garry Kasparov on the all-time ratings. Carlsen was unbeaten in both chess tournaments, whereas Kramnik and ... |
| Posted by silverwolfwsc uskidscompute.com 10/16/2003 22:22:10 Play online chess | humans vs humans? Message: isnt it really just a human vs human battle anyhow? They are just using two different tools. Once uses their own brain to play chess, and the other uses their brain to make a computer play chess. |
| Posted by wizard_of_odd uskidscompute.com 10/17/2003 12:22:39 Play online chess | Silverwolf Message: That's my point exactly. :) |
| Posted by atrifix uskidscompute.com 10/19/2003 17:49:08 Play online chess | Message: www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1244 |