Terry McCracken wrote:
Well I saw the analysis and in 20 min. he looked 50 moves ahead in his head while looking at a diagram!!! A middlegame position no less! Fischer could do this as well!
So can Kasparov! There are others as well.
Today's engines look far less than 50 moves ahead.
A human chess game statistically lasts 41 moves.
A human able to look 50 moves ahead, though he may occasionally lose a game, should clearly win all matches against top engines. Right
Are they doing it ?
Matthias.
You're clearly ill-informed on this topic, better you do some serious research before commenting.
Here's some examples of how deep somone like Kasparov can search.
Matthias Gemuh wrote:Today's engines look far less than 50 moves ahead. A human chess game statistically lasts 41 moves.
A human able to look 50 moves ahead, though he may occasionally lose a game, should clearly win all matches against top engines. Right
Are they doing it ?
Matthias.
No one can look 50 moves ahead unless he really has a very powerful memory. It's impossible to look 50 ahead and always find the optimal moves without missing something. 50 moves ahead is beyond the horizon of both humans and computers.
Matthias Gemuh wrote:Today's engines look far less than 50 moves ahead. A human chess game statistically lasts 41 moves.
A human able to look 50 moves ahead, though he may occasionally lose a game, should clearly win all matches against top engines. Right
Are they doing it ?
Matthias.
No one can look 50 moves ahead unless he really has a very powerful memory. It's impossible to look 50 ahead and always find the optimal moves without missing something. 50 moves ahead is beyond the horizon of both humans and computers.
I disagree that 50 moves ahead is beyond the horizon of both humans and computers.
50 moves are certainly possible in some positions both for humans and for computers.
This is correct that you usually do not get this type of positions in games.
Here is an example for mate in 30 and I am sure both computers and humans can see mate in 50 in the right position.
[D]5n2/B3K3/2p2Np1/4k3/7P/3bN1P1/2Prn1P1/1q6 w - - 0 1
bob wrote:
A GM can _way_ out-calculate a computer along sharp tactical lines for the most part,
That is not true for today's hardware and top engines !!!!!.
Matthias.
Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't.
If you mean in correspondence chess, aided by engines, you are right.
Otherwise there is no proof for your claim.
Statistics prove that you are wrong:
if the GMs were that strong, they would not be blundering as frequently as they do in important human-human tournaments.
Just pick _any_ one of such tournaments and count the blunders at _shallow_ depth. There is no way they can calculate variations to 40-50 plies without using engines.
Matthias.
I'm only going to say this one more time and then move on to other topics. Correspondence play in the 1960's and 1970's did _not_ use computers, yet the variations were calculated out to depths that I considered impossible. Berliner had some gems and did _not_ need a computer to help him, since none were available back then.
GMs blunder because they are human, and make mistakes in time pressure, or when distracted, etc. But overall their moves are quite good. Otherwise I guess all the "greatest games" books need to be trashed as too full of blunders to be useful?
This is one of those "impossible to prove" situations so there is little point in continuing the back and forth discussion. You can have the last word. I still believe GM players are far stronger than computers overall in terms of positional play. And in the case of certain types of very deep and forcing tactics. Computers don't miss anything within their search horizon, and this horizon has gotten deep enough that they give GM players great trouble now. A GM can certainly calculate as deep as or deeper than a computer program. But at a cost of mental energy, and eventually fatigue will decide the outcome in many games... it is more a case of the GMs losing than it is a case of the computers winning... and it now happens frequently enough that GMs are beginning to not do very well against computers. Whether they would do better with one game a week is unknown since such an event would take forever.
Bob, don't waste your time with them, they know far more than we do.
That's not polite.
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
bob wrote:
A GM can _way_ out-calculate a computer along sharp tactical lines for the most part,
That is not true for today's hardware and top engines !!!!!.
Matthias.
Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't.
If you mean in correspondence chess, aided by engines, you are right.
Otherwise there is no proof for your claim.
Statistics prove that you are wrong:
if the GMs were that strong, they would not be blundering as frequently as they do in important human-human tournaments.
Just pick _any_ one of such tournaments and count the blunders at _shallow_ depth. There is no way they can calculate variations to 40-50 plies without using engines.
Matthias.
I'm only going to say this one more time and then move on to other topics. Correspondence play in the 1960's and 1970's did _not_ use computers, yet the variations were calculated out to depths that I considered impossible. Berliner had some gems and did _not_ need a computer to help him, since none were available back then.
GMs blunder because they are human, and make mistakes in time pressure, or when distracted, etc. But overall their moves are quite good. Otherwise I guess all the "greatest games" books need to be trashed as too full of blunders to be useful?
This is one of those "impossible to prove" situations so there is little point in continuing the back and forth discussion. You can have the last word. I still believe GM players are far stronger than computers overall in terms of positional play. And in the case of certain types of very deep and forcing tactics. Computers don't miss anything within their search horizon, and this horizon has gotten deep enough that they give GM players great trouble now. A GM can certainly calculate as deep as or deeper than a computer program. But at a cost of mental energy, and eventually fatigue will decide the outcome in many games... it is more a case of the GMs losing than it is a case of the computers winning... and it now happens frequently enough that GMs are beginning to not do very well against computers. Whether they would do better with one game a week is unknown since such an event would take forever.
Bob, don't waste your time with them, they know far more than we do.
That's not polite.
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing.... You should try to refute their statements instead.
He can't,the truth and the statistical data are obvious for everyone to see....
No more human strategical superiority nonsense,set on the table and prove it,or let one of your GM searching 500 plies ahead do it....
_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….
George Tsavdaris wrote:
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.
Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.
George Tsavdaris wrote:
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.
Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.
Zdravei Geno,
But please,why the sorry,I respect your opinion
Ok,can you provide some evidence that we are realy underestimating the grandmasters
Show us the money as they like to say in Bulgaria
_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….
GenoM wrote:
Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.
I like to believe that GMs are as strong as their hypothetic superiority is portrayed in this thread, but they blunder too frequently.
Going by statistics, we have to say they can't be that strong.
There is no data to prove me wrong.
If I could look 40...50 plies ahead, my blunders would be after 30th ply, not at ply 6.
George Tsavdaris wrote:
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.
Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.
No
They are simply wrong
Bob said:
"Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't."
This is simply not correct
I believe that
programs calculate variations to 40-50 plies more often then humans.
The claim that program do not calculate sometimes variations to 40-50 plies is wrong.
programs have extensions and the extensions can push them to calculate 40-50 plies.
I believe that GM's do not calculate 40-50 plies forward in most of their games even in their selective search.
GenoM wrote:
Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.
I like to believe that GMs are as strong as their hypothetic superiority is portrayed in this thread, but they blunder too frequently.
Going by statistics, we have to say they can't be that strong.
There is no data to prove me wrong.
If I could look 40...50 plies ahead, my blunders would be after 30th ply, not at ply 6.
Matthias.
It is possible to see 40...50 plies ahead in one line but miss mate in 1 in another line but I believe that GM's are usually smart enough not to do it and they try not to miss something at small depth because selective search to big depth is not going to give them much.
The only exception is when there is obviously forced line but computer also extend checks and single reply to check.
