Carlsen, 17 years old, tops FIDE ELO list

[Graham Banks]

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?

[Larry]

the lists are different but if combined i fear it would not be very pretty for the humans
Sobering Thought Regards
Steve

And if we had a way of coming up with a rating list that combined
players of different eras, I'd say it would not be very pretty for the
players of yesteryear.They had every bit as much natural talent,
but not the training resources as today's players. Nor did they have
the cheap and fast international travel. An invaluable training tool
for today's professionals is in fact computer chess programs.
Incidentally, is'nt there a separate rating list for females? Why do
you suppose this is? So the women can look pretty?
human patzer regards
Larry

[Steve B]

the lists are different but if combined i fear it would not be very pretty for the humans
Sobering Thought Regards
Steve

And if we had a way of coming up with a rating list that combined
players of different eras, I'd say it would not be very pretty for the
players of yesteryear.They had every bit as much natural talent,
but not the training resources as today's players. Nor did they have
the cheap and fast international travel. An invaluable training tool
for today's professionals is in fact computer chess programs.
Incidentally, is'nt there a separate rating list for females? Why do
you suppose this is? So the women can look pretty?
human patzer regards
Larry

well when i said a "combined list" i meant that humans would be playing engines in rated tournaments ...not that we simply combine the two lists

i agree that most top players of today would be stronger then many top players of yesteryear if we simply plucked them from the past and sat them down to play each other
opening theory has evolved and this would make a huge difference in results
however the more interesting question is...
if the greats of yesteryear were contemporaries of the greats of today(that is to say ..they were born at around the same time) then who would be better?
both groups would now have the same tools available from birth (computers databases,Engines etc etc)
seems to me a 17 yr old Fischer or Capa or Lasker would eat a 17 yr Topalov or this Carlsen kid for lunch

as to the separation of Fide ratings of men and women..
i think i will pass on that one Larry
i am still struggling with the notion of Pailen for Vice President


Past Greats v Todays Greats...NoLo Contendre Regards
Steve

[Tony Thomas]

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?

Bang!

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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.

Thanks buddy,your support is much appreciated....

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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.

Yeah,thanks God you don't

[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.

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??

_Yes,my wins over the chess engines are concentrated under the range of 2400 Elo,above this limit I am glad if I make a draw here and there....

_Because of his human tactical blindness,that's why....

[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.

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....

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

[Event "DCCW_RL 2008"]
[Date "2008.06.02"]
[White "Dr.Wael Deeb_2042"]
[Black "Atak 4.99 Linka wb_2038"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A03"]
[Opening "Bird’s Opening"]


1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 c6 5. O-O Nf6 6. d4 O-O
7. c3 Bf5 8. Qb3 b6 9. Ne5 e6 10. Nd2 Qc7 11. e3 c5 12. Re1
Nbd7 13. Ndf3 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 c4 15. Qd1 a5 16. g4 Be4 17. g5
Nd7 18. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Qe2 Nxe5 20. fxe5 Rad8 21. Qg2 Qc6
22. Rf1 Rfe8 23. Rf4 h6 24. Rxe4 Qa4 25. h4 Rf8 26. Rf4 b5 27. Rf1 hxg5 28. hxg5 Rd7 29. Qh2 b4 30. Qe2 b3 31. a3 Qc6 32. Qg4 Rfd8 33. e4 Qb6 34. Kg2 Kf8 35. Rf3 Ke7 36. Be3 Qc7 37. Raf1 Rf8 38. Qh4 Kd8 39. Qh7 Bh8 40. Qxg6 Kc8 41. Qh6 Rfd8 42. Qh7 Rf8 1-0

Here is my latest win against an engine in the range of 2000-2100....
I am posting this to show that Tony doesn't talk empty words,I have a lot more games played but I am not in the mood to post more....
Unforetunately,I don't have much time and energy lately to play the damn things,but I'll keep on fighting never the less....

[Enir]

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