reflectionofpower wrote:I was just perusing these games with Vitruvius 1.11_HEM and it found mistakes on winner & loser's end. The programs & hardware of today cannot be matched against. They are stronger than humans.
No surprise.
When you choose games when you know that there was a mistake(otherwise the result is a draw) you find mistakes.
I agree that chess engines are stronger than humans but analyzing human games by engines is no proof for it espacially when the humans have no motivation to play in anti-computer style against humans and did not try to get a position that the computer does not understand.
Choose games? Some of them I didn't. In fact I would say just about ANY game on this planet you can do what I do and find mistakes. WHat I don't understand is why people keep going on about anti-computer style,etc when we're still waiting for the human messiah to come and beat these programs when the best in the world have not done it yet. Is this like Dune (1984)?
Paul: What do you call the mouse shadow on the second moon?
Stilgar: We call that one Muad'Dib.
Paul: Could I be known as Paul Muad'Dib?
Stilgar: You are Paul Muad'Dib!
WHen someone drinks "The Water OF Life" give me a holler because that was a sci-fi movie. The movie I live in is called,"Life" and it is what it is.
"Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." (Dune - 1984)
reflectionofpower wrote:I was just perusing these games with Vitruvius 1.11_HEM and it found mistakes on winner & loser's end. The programs & hardware of today cannot be matched against. They are stronger than humans.
No surprise.
When you choose games when you know that there was a mistake(otherwise the result is a draw) you find mistakes.
I agree that chess engines are stronger than humans but analyzing human games by engines is no proof for it espacially when the humans have no motivation to play in anti-computer style against humans and did not try to get a position that the computer does not understand.
Choose games? Some of them I didn't. In fact I would say just about ANY game on this planet you can do what I do and find mistakes.
In this case
please find mistakes in the following game
I chose a very short game to do the task easier for you so you do not need to analyze many positions.
reflectionofpower wrote:I was just perusing these games with Vitruvius 1.11_HEM and it found mistakes on winner & loser's end. The programs & hardware of today cannot be matched against. They are stronger than humans.
No surprise.
When you choose games when you know that there was a mistake(otherwise the result is a draw) you find mistakes.
I agree that chess engines are stronger than humans but analyzing human games by engines is no proof for it espacially when the humans have no motivation to play in anti-computer style against humans and did not try to get a position that the computer does not understand.
Choose games? Some of them I didn't. In fact I would say just about ANY game on this planet you can do what I do and find mistakes.
In this case
please find mistakes in the following game
I chose a very short game to do the task easier for you so you do not need to analyze many positions.
reflectionofpower wrote:I was just perusing these games with Vitruvius 1.11_HEM and it found mistakes on winner & loser's end. The programs & hardware of today cannot be matched against. They are stronger than humans.
No surprise.
When you choose games when you know that there was a mistake(otherwise the result is a draw) you find mistakes.
I agree that chess engines are stronger than humans but analyzing human games by engines is no proof for it espacially when the humans have no motivation to play in anti-computer style against humans and did not try to get a position that the computer does not understand.
Choose games? Some of them I didn't. In fact I would say just about ANY game on this planet you can do what I do and find mistakes.
In this case
please find mistakes in the following game
I chose a very short game to do the task easier for you so you do not need to analyze many positions.
I consider 4.Bc1 and 4...Bc8 to be positional mistakes in the last game(even if they do not change the theretical result of the game and it is still a draw)
After 4.Bc1 black can try to play for a win(assuming the players have equal strength).
I believe that the game that I gave is a better game.
reflectionofpower wrote:I was just perusing these games with Vitruvius 1.11_HEM and it found mistakes on winner & loser's end. The programs & hardware of today cannot be matched against. They are stronger than humans.
No surprise.
When you choose games when you know that there was a mistake(otherwise the result is a draw) you find mistakes.
I agree that chess engines are stronger than humans but analyzing human games by engines is no proof for it espacially when the humans have no motivation to play in anti-computer style against humans and did not try to get a position that the computer does not understand.
Choose games? Some of them I didn't. In fact I would say just about ANY game on this planet you can do what I do and find mistakes.
In this case
please find mistakes in the following game
I chose a very short game to do the task easier for you so you do not need to analyze many positions.
I consider 4.Bc1 and 4...Bc8 to be positional mistakes in the last game(even if they do not change the theretical result of the game and it is still a draw)
After 4.Bc1 black can try to play for a win(assuming the players have equal strength).
I believe that the game that I gave is a better game.
I see the point went right over your head. Your rebuttal was based on your pride. You KNOW I am right about most games being proven fallible through software analysis and then you give me a 10 move game so I can solve it with analysis from a program?? Why don't we just go with 1)e4 e5? cause that is about the Holy Grail of your dissertation. I used the word,"dissertation" cause that might kick in your intellectual prowess that you have.
"Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." (Dune - 1984)
You need a premium account at Chess.com to watch the live coverage. If you don't have such an account - and are not inclined to be an ongoing paying member - you can buy a "platinum" membership for one month for $7 and watch the match. The memberships are sold as recurring each month but you can cancel at any time.
At such a fast time control the human player has almost no chance...best time control to allow yourself to think and calculate against a machine is 40 moves in 2 hrs plus 30 minutes......pawn odds will be a disadvantage unless it is the kbp that is missing.......end of story....good luck Nakamura... now we get to test Super GM ratings inflation! lmao!
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:26 am Post subject: Re: Nakamura vs Stockfish, public match 8/23
Jhoravi wrote:
More and more interesting matches at my favorite Chess.com! BTW does 45´30" time control means 30 seconds increment?
Yes, each side gets 45 minutes plus 30 seconds per move
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
.
