Carlsen, 17 years old, tops FIDE ELO list

[Terry McCracken]

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

Kasparov failed to win his last matches, yet he did play best overall.

Interesting.

[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

Kasparov failed to win his last matches, yet he did play best overall.

Interesting.

I think we disagree here. You say that Kasparov played better because you, as the human player you are, understand and value more what he did than the number crunching of the machine. But if the machine won, and it did, it necessarily means that the machine played better overall. Not the way you appreciate, I understand that, but since the purpose of the game is winning, the winner is the better player.

Enrique

[Terry McCracken]

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

Kasparov failed to win his last matches, yet he did play best overall.

Interesting.

I think we disagree here. You say that Kasparov played better because you, as the human player you are, understand and value more what he did than the number crunching of the machine. But if the machine won, and it did, it necessarily means that the machine played better overall. Not the way you appreciate, I understand that, but since the purpose of the game is winning, the winner is the better player.

Enrique

No, I understood the chess itself, and Kasparov only managed to draw, not lose but draw the match.

I understood Kasparov's chess which was more complex than the computers chess.

Kasparov failed to win more to do with misfortune than anything else. A headache and he tosses the won game etc.

How well will the computer do if I can give it a migrane?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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

Kasparov failed to win his last matches, yet he did play best overall.

Interesting.

I think we disagree here. You say that Kasparov played better because you, as the human player you are, understand and value more what he did than the number crunching of the machine. But if the machine won, and it did, it necessarily means that the machine played better overall. Not the way you appreciate, I understand that, but since the purpose of the game is winning, the winner is the better player.

Enrique

No, I understood the chess itself, and Kasparov only managed to draw, not lose but draw the match.

I understood Kasparov's chess which was more complex than the computers chess.

Kasparov failed to win more to do with misfortune than anything else. A headache and he tosses the won game etc.

How well will the computer do if I can give it a migrane?

No excuses please....and besides,were you in his head to see if he had a migrane or any kind of headache
I don't deny the weakness of the human nature though,these things happen,but even in a perfect condition,the human can draw an odd match at best nowadays against a top chess engine running on an octal machine....We have limits Terry,or....

[Milton]

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.

As GM Lombardi said: "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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.

As GM Lombardi said: "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."

Aha,now that's what I call a wise man's wording....

[Father]

Enrique.

When I was 17 years old, then 1977, my Father told me about chess machines.

These where the first words I listened on my life about chess machines.

In 1979, then I played Chess aginst Challenger No 7; my Father Q.E.P.D. as a beutifull gift send to me a Fidelity Electronics comp, and it was as a dream. Close I discoverd that this machine had problem in end games, but then never I could forget the chess computers.

All my life I was askening by myseft If one day will be comming a machine that play better and faster that the top human being chess player. And then dreams have been converting in reality.

For us, humans, have the oportunity to play against chess machines of newdays is a beutifull experience. Be losing many games but be learnig more about machines is nice. Rybka 3 just as example, has probably crosed a hard line for our human capacity. I wonder where is our limit. I would like to have time to play secrets matches against a powerfull hardware and Rybka 3, in the silence of home, in long time control levels, but the time of the clock of my limited existence is running and time is gold and responsability.

What will be hapening with humans that use their time learning in silence from the chess machines monsters. I belive in human being imagination. I wonder where is our real limit. I wonder where could I came playing against this monsters.But my time is ending becouse of, 94 years are just as a second, iqual that 48 years are.

In heaven chess will be obsolete.Our mental power is beutifull, and chess achines, and nanotechnology, and micorships, only show to us, that we are sons and daughters of God. Chess computers develoment, will be helping a lot, to medicine, ...then..... no more people without sounsds for their brains, no moe people without imagenes in their brainds. This era, is in progress now. This is not a fantasy............

Bravo for the chess !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo for the chess human beings parents of all amateurs and profesional chess machines.

Best

Pablo Ignacio
Father usser in playchess.com

[Terry McCracken]

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

Kasparov failed to win his last matches, yet he did play best overall.

Interesting.

I think we disagree here. You say that Kasparov played better because you, as the human player you are, understand and value more what he did than the number crunching of the machine. But if the machine won, and it did, it necessarily means that the machine played better overall. Not the way you appreciate, I understand that, but since the purpose of the game is winning, the winner is the better player.

Enrique

No, I understood the chess itself, and Kasparov only managed to draw, not lose but draw the match.

I understood Kasparov's chess which was more complex than the computers chess.

Kasparov failed to win more to do with misfortune than anything else. A headache and he tosses the won game etc.

How well will the computer do if I can give it a migrane?

No excuses please....and besides,were you in his head to see if he had a migrane or any kind of headache
I don't deny the weakness of the human nature though,these things happen,but even in a perfect condition,the human can draw an odd match at best nowadays against a top chess engine running on an octal machine....We have limits Terry,or....

Enough! If you can't understand GM chess then be quiet.

I rarely report posts, but if you continue in this vane, I'll report what needs to be reported.

[Graham Banks]

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.

Agreed, but this is becoming less of a factor these days because the top engines are just so strong.

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!

Engines base their "plans" around more "knowledge" than previously, but I agree with you that humans base their plans on long term perceptions which is something that the engines can't do because of the horizon effect.
Despite this, humans don't usually lose through making outright blunders, more like small inaccuracies that the engines exploit.

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!

I don't think that this happens as often as it did previously though.
Today's engines are not often made to look stupid.

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.

As somebody else mentioned, centaur play is clearly stronger than pure engine play.
You can also learn more from a good human coach than through just playing engines.
However, wins are wins and losses are losses. The fact is that the top humans seem unable to foot it in a match against the top engines nowadays.

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!

I doubt that this colours the views of many.

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

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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

Kasparov failed to win his last matches, yet he did play best overall.

Interesting.

I think we disagree here. You say that Kasparov played better because you, as the human player you are, understand and value more what he did than the number crunching of the machine. But if the machine won, and it did, it necessarily means that the machine played better overall. Not the way you appreciate, I understand that, but since the purpose of the game is winning, the winner is the better player.

Enrique

No, I understood the chess itself, and Kasparov only managed to draw, not lose but draw the match.

I understood Kasparov's chess which was more complex than the computers chess.

Kasparov failed to win more to do with misfortune than anything else. A headache and he tosses the won game etc.

How well will the computer do if I can give it a migrane?

No excuses please....and besides,were you in his head to see if he had a migrane or any kind of headache
I don't deny the weakness of the human nature though,these things happen,but even in a perfect condition,the human can draw an odd match at best nowadays against a top chess engine running on an octal machine....We have limits Terry,or....

Enough! If you can't understand GM chess then be quiet.

I rarely report posts, but if you continue in this vane, I'll report what needs to be reported.

Is your brain getting overheated Terry during the summer
What are you going to report me about,that I an saying that machines are superior to humans when it comes to chess
And I don't buy your understanding of GM chess as you don't seem to understand the top chess engines play in the first place....