Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:And as George said and as I've always said,we are yet to witness a positive human result against the current chess engines....yet to prove this human strategical superiority over the chess engines....because when a comp plays the human,I only see shiny floors after it were wiped with human bodies
This is true, because while GMs understand chess better than programs, programs are much more accurate at tactics and never get tired, which has proven to be the more important advantage in the winning of matches.
As you say, even the strongest humans are from this day forward, forever consigned to the lower end of the mop handle.
Words of wisdom are always big pleasure to hear
_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….
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:And as George said and as I've always said,we are yet to witness a positive human result against the current chess engines....yet to prove this human strategical superiority over the chess engines....because when a comp plays the human,I only see shiny floors after it were wiped with human bodies
This is true, because while GMs understand chess better than programs, programs are much more accurate at tactics and never get tired, which has proven to be the more important advantage in the winning of matches.
As you say, even the strongest humans are from this day forward, forever consigned to the lower end of the mop handle.
Correct. And I will add that we are today, where _most_ believed we were 10 years ago. The computers are finally clearly GM players at the top level.
When a computer beats a human--- people say superior tactics! When one master beats another master isnt it pretty much the same story---tactics!
When one world champion beats another world champion isnt it tactics!?
When was the last time you saw a strategical masterpiece?
I guess my point is---machines are like humans, only more so.
There are only a small percentage of positions that the super GM's understand better than the best programs.So for human to have a chance in a game then they have to steer the game to one of these types of positions.And alot of these special positions are constructed studies or problems that will never occur in a real game.
I remember that Kramnik had a strategically won game against a version of Deep Fritz but could only draw, so I think the only hope of human superiority will be in long correspondence games.
Cubeman wrote:There are only a small percentage of positions that the super GM's understand better than the best programs.So for human to have a chance in a game then they have to steer the game to one of these types of positions.And alot of these special positions are constructed studies or problems that will never occur in a real game.
I remember that Kramnik had a strategically won game against a version of Deep Fritz but could only draw, so I think the only hope of human superiority will be in long correspondence games.
And again with the vast assistance of computer chess power
_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….
My friend, this is not an endless issue, but a decided, boring one. The day is coming when SGM will only play the machines if given all his pieces againts the king and a pawn. And even so they will lose.
Of course they will get a bourse of half million bucks anyway regards
Fern
james uselton wrote:When a computer beats a human--- people say superior tactics! When one master beats another master isnt it pretty much the same story---tactics!
When one world champion beats another world champion isnt it tactics!?
When was the last time you saw a strategical masterpiece?
I guess my point is---machines are like humans, only more so.
I've seen many strategical masterpieces where the tactics are for the most part hidden, but planning, judgement, positional play _IE_ strategy can also be considered tactics of course as all concepts are interconnected/combined.
fern wrote:My friend, this is not an endless issue, but a decided, boring one. The day is coming when SGM will only play the machines if given all his pieces againts the king and a pawn. And even so they will lose.
Of course they will get a bourse of half million bucks anyway regards
Fern
_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….
Computers are vastly overrated I think. Computers are very strong in open positions with a lot of tactics but in quieter closed positions which require a lot of manouvering with knights the computer has problems. That's not bad though because chess is 99% tactics. But if you bring the computer out of his opening book early on it will play considerably weaker.
See this opening for example where white brought the computer out of his opening book early. Black played c5 which is not such a good move because it ignores the center but this move brings the computer out of his opening book and blocks black's bishop on c8. White has a space advantage which I think is the one thing computers vastly underestimate. In many cases you will see the computer accepting cramped positions and playing passively. The compensation is that computers defend very accurately. Siegbert Tarrasch disliked cramped positions, saying they have the germ of defeat.
Black needs to exchange the bad bishop on c8 or play e5 in order to free his pieces but again with problems because white controls the center and if black plays e5 his pawn on d4 becomes weak.
The strategic understanding of chess by the very top players is way overrated ... by overrated I don't mean against you or me ... I mean against a single core Rybka 3 or higher. We all hear the bishop pair is good to have and a GM will really like it if has the bishop pair ... but he will not be able to search deep into a position to see where the optimum dynamic placement of those bishops are and or how to use the squares covered by the bishops to extract a tactical advantage from a position ... again he might against you and me ... but against R3 or N4 he will look silly. Some programs do have weaknesses that if by some chance a certain ending is reached ... the human can win easily. N4 for example is very vulnerable to pawn advances and I can see it losing such games even with 32 cores against a human. The thing is that these positions are very tough to reach and extremely rare in actual play ... usually the human GM is polished off long before. In a match ... a human will not see too many opportunities ... and if he does get a once in a blue moon position ... he still has to win a match and not one single game.
Face it ... the mantle of the strongest chess entity has long passed from human to computer. At the moment, matching a strong hardwared Rybka 3 against the strongest GM in the world is like doing 10 race runs of 100 meters by the fastest human against a F1 car ... yes the F1 car might crash or have technical difficulties in a race or two ... but in 10 races ... the human will have no chance.
The computers are finally clearly GM players at the top level.
