Carlsen, 17 years old, tops FIDE ELO list

[Enir]

Yes, but rating 2790 in the SSDF list, for example, is not the same as 2790 FIDE. These are two different pools, and one needs to merge the two pools together to have a more accurate comparative assessment between players belonging from the two groups.

Computer rating lists are totally meaningless in that regard.

They usually are calibrated with engines that played on slow hardware for today's standards.
As a consequence we see a much higher rating inflation compared to FIDE.

In games against humans it most probably would not make any notable difference whether an engine plays on 2 or 4 cores. I guess it would make a difference in less than 0.1% of the games played.

There is also the question of style. The weird playing style of a Junior 7 for example might very well be quite effective against strong humans OTB, while Junior 7 gets totally destroyed by any of the top engines today.

The discussion seems pointless to me anyway. Chess is a game for humans, computer programs are just tools.

Hehehe,a quite good joke I assume....
The humans are nearly total patzers nowadays compared to the top chess engines....

yes of course it must be a joke
all the more amazing is that the post and its obvious attempt at humor was actually computer generated and not really written by a human

Toolmaker vs Tool Regards
Steve

But I do beat the hell out of your Scisys MKV. Those were real chess players!

Enrique

[Steve B]

But I do beat the hell out of your Scisys MKV. Those were real chess players!

Enrique

well that is no big surprise
after all ..you did write the very first review for the Mark V

1983 Hanover New Hampshire Regards
Steve

[AdminX]

And only Carsen would play something like this versus Anand

[d]r1bqkbnr/pppp2pp/2n5/1B2pp2/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq f6 0 4

[Event "Final Chess Masters Bilbao 2008"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.09.06"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C63"]
[WhiteElo "2798"]
[BlackElo "2775"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "2008.??.??"]
[WhiteTeam "India"]
[BlackTeam "Norway"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "IND"]
[BlackTeamCountry "NOR"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d3 fxe4 5. dxe4 Nf6 6. O-O Bc5 7. Bxc6 bxc6 8.
Nxe5 O-O 9. Nc3 d6 10. Nd3 Bd4 11. Ne2 Bb6 12. Bg5 Qe8 13. Bxf6 Rxf6 14. Ng3
Qf7 15. b3 Be6 16. Qd2 Rf8 17. Rae1 Rh6 18. Qc3 Rf6 19. Re2 Bg4 20. Rd2 Be3 21.
h3 Bxd2 22. Qxd2 Bc8 23. f4 h5 24. f5 h4 25. Ne2 Re8 26. Nf2 d5 27. Ng4 Rxe4
28. Nxf6+ Qxf6 29. Nc1 Bxf5 30. Qf2 Bg6 31. Qxa7 Rf4 32. Rxf4 Qxf4 33. Nd3 Bxd3
34. cxd3 Qc1+ 35. Kh2 Qf4+ 36. Kg1 1/2-1/2

Dare we say this opening just might start to come back to life at the highest levels !?

[Enir]

Absolutely great! Particularly when considering the horrible score Carlsen has against Anand. Brave boy.

Enrique

[Terry McCracken]

Amazing ...

It is also a sober reminder of the wide gap in playing strength today between computer chess and human chess
a rating of 2791 and it sets all human records of all time(not for highest rating but for youngest to top rating list)
and for a PC Engine a rating like that would be some where in the middle of the rating list and the engine could probably not sell 5 copies today @ $15 per copy

Automated Art Regards
Steve

One can argue that human ELO and computer ELO are not comparable. But I think they do indicate a very big difference in strength.

For instance, imagine that Rybka on an eight way machine would give a simultaneous exhibition in Bilbao against the six participants. What result would you predict? In my opinion, Rybka wouldn't lose a game and could probably win 2 to 4, for a total score 4-2 to 5-1. This was also the result predicted by some chess professionals I talked with about this.

Programs like Rybka are undeniably stronger than the best humans, and then I don't quite understand why people are so much more eager to follow a human than a computer event. Chess would be of a higher quality in the computer event. Obviously it is not chess quality what attracts the audience, but the evident human factor, as if engines were not made by humans. A Linares of computer chess is inconceivable. Why, oh why. The human circus? The identification spectator-player?

Enrique

I couldn't disagree more. The best overall chess comes from the best human players on the planet. Machines may win more games but not due to superiour play overall, but due to human weakness at some point in the game, whether it be oversight or fatigue, something machines can't suffer from.

Machines can't plan, Humans do, machines positional abilities are below the best humans, their understanding of chess overall is far less then the best human's but they usually win regardless due to deeper searches in some critical lines and the human misses a key tactic and then nothing can turn the game around even if the human were winning!

This has happened too many times to count. Also humans do win games but the wins are further between, but when they do win they make the machine look stupid! Why? Because the machines are in fact stupid! Either they find most in their search and eval or the fail terribly and that has been demostrated, here, on this forum!

So Enrique, the GM's do play better chess and the GM's do know more and the GM's are the best bar none to learn from, not machines, regardless whether the machine win more points or not.

If you don't understand this or anyone else then I say you have a poor understanding of chess.

Moreover, many here want to believe not know but believe computers are better as they envy Grandmasters as they can't be one themselves!

So their heroes are nothing more than Wires, Nuts & Bolts

[Terry McCracken]

Yes, but rating 2790 in the SSDF list, for example, is not the same as 2790 FIDE. These are two different pools, and one needs to merge the two pools together to have a more accurate comparative assessment between players belonging from the two groups.

Computer rating lists are totally meaningless in that regard.

They usually are calibrated with engines that played on slow hardware for today's standards.
As a consequence we see a much higher rating inflation compared to FIDE.

In games against humans it most probably would not make any notable difference whether an engine plays on 2 or 4 cores. I guess it would make a difference in less than 0.1% of the games played.

There is also the question of style. The weird playing style of a Junior 7 for example might very well be quite effective against strong humans OTB, while Junior 7 gets totally destroyed by any of the top engines today.

The discussion seems pointless to me anyway. Chess is a game for humans, computer programs are just tools.

Hehehe,a quite good joke I assume....
The humans are nearly total patzers nowadays compared to the top chess engines....

Read my open letter to Enrique!

Enough Braying!

[Martin Thoresen]

It was a very nice game by Carlsen today, shame he was inaccurate in the end while Anand played flawlessly (in the end that is).

[Dirt]

Moreover, many here want to believe not know but believe computers are better as they envy Grandmasters as they can't be one themselves!

Maybe you want to believe humans are better because you envy computers and can never be one yourself.

More seriously, I think a distinction should be made between positional understanding, where I think computers do quite well due to being able to apply that knowledge at the leaves of humongous trees, and strategic ability (planning), where they are indeed quite clueless. Chess is too tactical to now be a good field for man vs. machine contests. Even more tactical games, like reversi and checkers, fell long ago, but the fight continues with shogi, go, and others. One by one I guess they will also be left behind: What will we do when computers are better at living than we are?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Amazing ...

It is also a sober reminder of the wide gap in playing strength today between computer chess and human chess
a rating of 2791 and it sets all human records of all time(not for highest rating but for youngest to top rating list)
and for a PC Engine a rating like that would be some where in the middle of the rating list and the engine could probably not sell 5 copies today @ $15 per copy

Automated Art Regards
Steve

One can argue that human ELO and computer ELO are not comparable. But I think they do indicate a very big difference in strength.

For instance, imagine that Rybka on an eight way machine would give a simultaneous exhibition in Bilbao against the six participants. What result would you predict? In my opinion, Rybka wouldn't lose a game and could probably win 2 to 4, for a total score 4-2 to 5-1. This was also the result predicted by some chess professionals I talked with about this.

Programs like Rybka are undeniably stronger than the best humans, and then I don't quite understand why people are so much more eager to follow a human than a computer event. Chess would be of a higher quality in the computer event. Obviously it is not chess quality what attracts the audience, but the evident human factor, as if engines were not made by humans. A Linares of computer chess is inconceivable. Why, oh why. The human circus? The identification spectator-player?

Enrique

I couldn't disagree more. The best overall chess comes from the best human players on the planet. Machines may win more games but not due to superiour play overall, but due to human weakness at some point in the game, whether it be oversight or fatigue, something machines can't suffer from.

Machines can't plan, Humans do, machines positional abilities are below the best humans, their understanding of chess overall is far less then the best human's but they usually win regardless due to deeper searches in some critical lines and the human misses a key tactic and then nothing can turn the game around even if the human were winning!

This has happened too many times to count. Also humans do win games but the wins are further between, but when they do win they make the machine look stupid! Why? Because the machines are in fact stupid! Either they find most in their search and eval or the fail terribly and that has been demostrated, here, on this forum!

So Enrique, the GM's do play better chess and the GM's do know more and the GM's are the best bar none to learn from, not machines, regardless whether the machine win more points or not.

If you don't understand this or anyone else then I say you have a poor understanding of chess.

Moreover, many here want to believe not know but believe computers are better as they envy Grandmasters as they can't be one themselves!

So their heroes are nothing more than Wires, Nuts & Bolts

This is simply too wrong,you are overreacting here for sure....

Chess is about winning the game,simple as that....the machines win most of the time against the poor humans=the machines are playing much better than the poor humans ....
Any one who dares to deny this simple formula must go back to school to finish his elementary education

[Terry McCracken]

Amazing ...

It is also a sober reminder of the wide gap in playing strength today between computer chess and human chess
a rating of 2791 and it sets all human records of all time(not for highest rating but for youngest to top rating list)
and for a PC Engine a rating like that would be some where in the middle of the rating list and the engine could probably not sell 5 copies today @ $15 per copy

Automated Art Regards
Steve

One can argue that human ELO and computer ELO are not comparable. But I think they do indicate a very big difference in strength.

For instance, imagine that Rybka on an eight way machine would give a simultaneous exhibition in Bilbao against the six participants. What result would you predict? In my opinion, Rybka wouldn't lose a game and could probably win 2 to 4, for a total score 4-2 to 5-1. This was also the result predicted by some chess professionals I talked with about this.

Programs like Rybka are undeniably stronger than the best humans, and then I don't quite understand why people are so much more eager to follow a human than a computer event. Chess would be of a higher quality in the computer event. Obviously it is not chess quality what attracts the audience, but the evident human factor, as if engines were not made by humans. A Linares of computer chess is inconceivable. Why, oh why. The human circus? The identification spectator-player?

Enrique

I couldn't disagree more. The best overall chess comes from the best human players on the planet. Machines may win more games but not due to superiour play overall, but due to human weakness at some point in the game, whether it be oversight or fatigue, something machines can't suffer from.

Machines can't plan, Humans do, machines positional abilities are below the best humans, their understanding of chess overall is far less then the best human's but they usually win regardless due to deeper searches in some critical lines and the human misses a key tactic and then nothing can turn the game around even if the human were winning!

This has happened too many times to count. Also humans do win games but the wins are further between, but when they do win they make the machine look stupid! Why? Because the machines are in fact stupid! Either they find most in their search and eval or the fail terribly and that has been demostrated, here, on this forum!

So Enrique, the GM's do play better chess and the GM's do know more and the GM's are the best bar none to learn from, not machines, regardless whether the machine win more points or not.

If you don't understand this or anyone else then I say you have a poor understanding of chess.

Moreover, many here want to believe not know but believe computers are better as they envy Grandmasters as they can't be one themselves!

So their heroes are nothing more than Wires, Nuts & Bolts

This is simply too wrong,you are overreacting here for sure....

Chess is about winning the game,simple as that....the machines win most of the time against the poor humans=the machines are playing much better than the poor humans ....
Any one who dares to deny this simple formula must go back to school to finish his elementary education

No Sir! You don't understand chess to make such a banal and crass statement!

Bloody ad hominems, that's the limit of your arguement!