Originally posted by ludzonly 63 billion!? sucks to hydra then because I can calculate more than that per second 😛
At the end of a day, a computer is just a machine. Nobody is excited watching a computer as they are watching human masters. Who goes drooling in the street saying Hydra is in town she can calculate 63 billion positions per second?
On the other hand a human master would get many excited, people calling their friends, simuls and so on.
I still think a human could beat a computer if he was motivated enough. Kasparov didn't get beat because of calculation or lack of chess knowledge but because he was psychologically unbalanced due to rumours of cheating.
If Kramnik had to win to save his life, he would.
That said it is a moot point as someone else mentioned it is like running the 100metres against a car. No contest.
The human battle of mind against mind will carry on. Look at the recent novelty in the Topolov - Kramnik game in Corus.
the vast and complex knowledge reached by computer analysis is not really transferrable to human brain. we simply can't retain the information of millions of calculations. it takes years and years of hard work to master even the basic general principles, which makes it completely ludicrous to think computers would drastically change the way we can understand chess. we can analyse positions with computers, but we can't think like them. which makes any progress in engine strength purely academic. it's just irrelevant to the way humans play chess.
even if chess was solved, we'd still get beaten by masters who didn't know the 'solution', exactly like we get beaten now.
and if the time controls get shorter, general positional knowledge will dominate even more over long & complex maze of fritzed variations.
Originally posted by MahoutVideo killed the radio star!
Chess is a beautiful intriguing stimulating and enjoyable game to play and so long as people want to play it then chess will survive. Film did not kill theater, TV did not kill radio, the record player did not kill live performance and the computer will not kill chess.
Maybe some individuals will tire of chess and blame it on computers...but that's not the end of chess.
Actually I don't really care that computers are getting stronger, it just doesn't interest me or the tournaments I play in (where we usually have 2 experts and once in a great while a master). Chess is still interesting and fun for me to play. Super-GM tournaments are fun to watch, and I expect that they have anti-cheating measures in place.
Originally posted by wormwoodI don't think that we will be "solving" chess any time soon. It would take the best super computers longer than the universe is old(or how old scientists think it is) to find all variations until all possible ends...it would take something like 10^30 years.
the vast and complex knowledge reached by computer analysis is not really transferrable to human brain. we simply can't retain the information of millions of calculations. it takes years and years of hard work to master even the basic general principles, which makes it completely ludicrous to think computers would drastically change the way we can understan ...[text shortened]... itional knowledge will dominate even more over long & complex maze of fritzed variations.
computers always play the same way.. after a few games you can win against them. They're really worthless in a chess tournament since you have to assume the top players have already won against them as a 'warm up'..
The only time I 'fear' a chess program on-line is when its a low-level player and I move 10-15 times before I realize I'm playing a machine.. then I have to work hard..
Originally posted by erice1Did this post come from 1994 or so? 🙂
computers always play the same way.. after a few games you can win against them. They're really worthless in a chess tournament since you have to assume the top players have already won against them as a 'warm up'..
Originally posted by erice1Since GM's have been getting beaten by progs for a long time now, you must be A HELL of a player.
computers always play the same way.. after a few games you can win against them. They're really worthless in a chess tournament since you have to assume the top players have already won against them as a 'warm up'..
The only time I 'fear' a chess program on-line is when its a low-level player and I move 10-15 times before I realize I'm playing a machine.. then I have to work hard..
Back to the topic... Assuming the premises of the thought experiment are correct and computers will totally dominate chess (Rybka is already winning with pawn odds against 2600+ GMs), how will that affect human chess (opening theory, cheating, image, etc.). Will it become the next tic-tac-toe in a century? 😛
Originally posted by exigentskyI do not think so because humans can not make so much use of computer lines...we all have or can have computer engines and still some are better than others...I recently lost a game against an FM after he did a Rook sack which on the computer was very unsound...and I knew on board it MUST be unsound...but I am human and I was not able to find the accurate defence...
Back to the topic... Assuming the premises of the thought experiment are correct and computers will totally dominate chess (Rybka is already winning with pawn odds against 2600+ GMs), how will that affect human chess (opening theory, cheating, image, etc.). Will it become the next tic-tac-toe in a century? 😛
Computers can dominate all mind games, but this doesn't mean that between humans it will be a strong competition...
I agree that opening theory might change, they should be much more carefull against cheating(anyway, the anty cheating devices will improve too so I am not very worried about this one)