Carlsen, 17 years old, tops FIDE ELO list

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hi Terry,

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

You have a point, of course. Machines are indeed stupid, can’t learn and are pure muscle. Or so the anthropocentric view says. Put it the other way around: machines would find us mentally crippled because we are unable to announce a mate in 240 moves in the endings, or to calculate 20 moves in advance quickly and accurately.

Chess is a tactical game. The day chess will be solved, positional play, strategy, will become completely unnecessary: it will be all in the search. Men are stuck, we won’t improve our brain abilities and we will have to rely on that ersatz of deep accurate search called positional play. Machines will improve steadily. Chess will be more and more they game. It already is.

Finally, the better player of the game of chess is the one who wins, and that’s the machines. True, we can find beauty in the deep positional conception of great games, but we can also find beauty in deep combinations played by machines. And in the end it is all in the search.
The most one can say, I think, is that 27. Bf6! played by Kasparov is much more beautiful than the apparently identical 27. Bf6! Played by Rybka, because we may find more admirable and more thrilling the process required by the human player to reach that move. But that’s anthropocentric again.

Enrique

A words of deep wisdom,I hope Terry understand these statements and at last see the truth before his own eyes....

[GenoM]

So if two heavy wieght boxers meet over the ring and one of them beats to hell out of the other one over and over and over again,you will still believe that the busted boxer is better regardless of the result....

My example would be little different:
If two boxers - one of heavy weight and one of light weight - meet each other on the ring and the heavier boxer beats the hell out of the light-weighted one, the lightweighted one can still be a better boxer.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

So if two heavy wieght boxers meet over the ring and one of them beats to hell out of the other one over and over and over again,you will still believe that the busted boxer is better regardless of the result....

My example would be little different:
If two boxers - one of heavy weight and one of light weight - meet each other on the ring and the heavier boxer beats the hell out of the light-weighted one, the lightweighted one can still be a better boxer.

Yes,because he's the underdog,right
Thanks Geno,ti si prijatel

[Enir]

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?

For the same reason that centaurs are so much better than humans playing by themselves. Human players and computers don't have the same areas of strength, and Centaurs are a combination of their fortes. Does this mean that human's fortes are more significant than computer's? Of course not. The winner of the game man-machine will tell you which one is more significant, and we all know who wins.

There is only one answer

No. See above. Sorry, Alex, your comparison doesn't make sense.

-- 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.

Human players do understand better and compute worse. Overall, computing has the upper hand over understanding. Time will only increase the difference in favor of computing.

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.

Sure. But humans won't be able to learn a thing from the number crunching abilities of computers. Tendency, time, are against human players. Of course we can always say that engines and machines are man-made.

One simple point: the winner plays best overall.

Enrique

[Terry McCracken]

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.

So if two heavy wieght boxers meet over the ring and one of them beats to hell out of the other one over and over and over again,you will still believe that the busted boxer is better regardless of the result....I've never seen more twisted logic than yours....what you're trying to show us is a pure sample of a blind faith,nothing else....

You simply don't comprehend.

[Tony Thomas]

You simply don't comprehend.

What else you got?

[Terry McCracken]

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.

Is a marathon runner who leads every race only to get run down and passed in the final 500 metres in 75% of the races still better than those who beat him?

[Terry McCracken]

Hi Terry,

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

You have a point, of course. Machines are indeed stupid, can’t learn and are pure muscle. Or so the anthropocentric view says. Put it the other way around: machines would find us mentally crippled because we are unable to announce a mate in 240 moves in the endings, or to calculate 20 moves in advance quickly and accurately.

Chess is a tactical game. The day chess will be solved, positional play, strategy, will become completely unnecessary: it will be all in the search. Men are stuck, we won’t improve our brain abilities and we will have to rely on that ersatz of deep accurate search called positional play. Machines will improve steadily. Chess will be more and more they game. It already is.

Finally, the better player of the game of chess is the one who wins, and that’s the machines. True, we can find beauty in the deep positional conception of great games, but we can also find beauty in deep combinations played by machines. And in the end it is all in the search.

The most one can say, I think, is that 27. Bf6! played by Kasparov is much more beautiful than the apparently identical 27. Bf6! Played by Rybka, because we may find more admirable and more thrilling the process required by the human player to reach that move. But that’s anthropocentric again.

Enrique

I agree that _if_ chess is solved then all the means that man uses to resolve games will be pointless. However, even the computer is an extension of man's mind.

Terry

[Terry McCracken]

You simply don't comprehend.

What else you got?

Ditto for you.

[Terry McCracken]

So if two heavy wieght boxers meet over the ring and one of them beats to hell out of the other one over and over and over again,you will still believe that the busted boxer is better regardless of the result....

My example would be little different:
If two boxers - one of heavy weight and one of light weight - meet each other on the ring and the heavier boxer beats the hell out of the light-weighted one, the lightweighted one can still be a better boxer.

Yes,because he's the underdog,right
Thanks Geno,ti si prijatel

NO!

Again you fail to grasp the obvious.