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!
As far as I understand chess,when two opponents meet over the board and one of them kicks the other one's butt most of the time,then the one who kicks most of the time is definitely stronger....
I don't care about tactical weakness at a certin point of the game which will blow off the whole human's game even though his positional understanding is much superior....what I care about is the result,it's all about winning or loosing,is that right
So following this logic you can't characterize the machines as stupid,this is a pure sample of arrogance without any real facts or statistics to confirm it....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Terry McCracken wrote:
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!
Wael has defeated more chess engines than anyone else here without using any type of anti-computer play. So your statement that he doesnt understand chess is an ad-hominem.
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.
I mostly agree.
Suppose that computers really did play better chess, in some sense, than humans. Then why are centaurs so much better than computers playing by themselves?
There is only one answer -- because humans still understand many important parts of the game better than the computers. That's true even though human weakness, as you put it, makes humans lose a lot.
That said, computers are better at spotting tactics and they are able to make excellent moves often -- but they still have a thing or two to learn from humans.
Terry McCracken wrote:
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!
Wael has defeated more chess engines than anyone else here without using any type of anti-computer play. So your statement that he doesnt understand chess is an ad-hominem.
You know that as fact? Rybka level? His philosophy isn't quite sound in this case.
If I had a chip in my head to prevent oversights the programs would go down in flames.
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.
I mostly agree.
Suppose that computers really did play better chess, in some sense, than humans. Then why are centaurs so much better than computers playing by themselves?
There is only one answer -- because humans still understand many important parts of the game better than the computers. That's true even though human weakness, as you put it, makes humans lose a lot.
That said, computers are better at spotting tactics and they are able to make excellent moves often -- but they still have a thing or two to learn from humans.
You know that as fact? Rybka level? His philosophy isn't quite sound in this case.
You seem to think that Rybka is the only chess program available.. There are over 400 engines available, and I am pretty sure Wael has most of them.
You didn't answer my question.
If I had a chip in my head to prevent oversights the programs would go down in flames.
Why do you need that extra chip for oversights??
Figure it out.
No, I cannot call it a fact, he has reported more wins than anyone else, and its possible that there exist a person who won one or two games more than him. I am not sure if you know, he is one of the best free book makers..I dont think there is much to figure out other than the fact that regardless how many wins engines score against humans, you will always find an excuse. I cant seem to find any of these so called extremely superior positional knowledge in any of their moves.
You know that as fact? Rybka level? His philosophy isn't quite sound in this case.
You seem to think that Rybka is the only chess program available.. There are over 400 engines available, and I am pretty sure Wael has most of them.
You didn't answer my question.
If I had a chip in my head to prevent oversights the programs would go down in flames.
Why do you need that extra chip for oversights??
Figure it out.
No, I cannot call it a fact, he has reported more wins than anyone else, and its possible that there exist a person who won one or two games more than him. I am not sure if you know, he is one of the best free book makers..I dont think there is much to figure out other than the fact that regardless how many wins engines score against humans, you will always find an excuse. I cant seem to find any of these so called extremely superior positional knowledge in any of their moves.
A bookmaker, that explains a lot.
Tony I understand GM chess, that is why you don't understand my position.
I'm simply correct about the superiourity of GM chess, regardless who wins the most games.
To outplay a program and lose to it due to some human weakness doesn't
demonstrate the stength of the GM.
That 's a fact. Losing to cheap tactical error doesn't equate that the machine is better or the GM is weaker.
....
