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.

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....

If you knew anything at all about the match I'm referring to then you would know he was wearing X3D Glasses, (a promotional scheme), where the manufacturers said it was ill-advised to wear their device for more than an hour due to serious eye strain which could result in severe headaches.

Kasparov was suffering from severe pain due to this device and couldn't stay focused! He had an overwhelming position against the computer and accidently made a terrible move even a player like yourself wouldn't make! He also stated publicly that he was suffering a tremendous headache due to those very same glasses!

Maybe you think this is fair sportmanship? He either wore the glasses to promote their product or there would be no match!

I think Kasparov should have turned the match down; However, I don't know if he knew ahead of time the 3D Glasses would be such a serious problem?

They were and cost Kasparov an important victory and winning the match.

In another match he offered a draw in a position that he would have won but felt the computer could draw it and offered a draw. He was turned down, but after 20 min. consulting another GM they came back and gave him the draw as they realized, backed with proof that they would lose if Kasparov continued!

These aren't excuses, they're facts!

[Terry McCracken]

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....

Nothing but ad hominems, no facts and a personal attack on my integrity, implying I'm too weak a player to know what I'm talking about! You're simply wrong. I do in fact understand both GM chess and computer chess.


I reported one of your posts and it was deleted! It was deleted as you made a referrence about my state of mind, that I was delusive! You're doing it again and this is your last warning! If you do this one more time and can't show deference like a gentleman would, I'll report it!

I think you owe me an apology...

[Uri Blass]

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

There is no seperate rating list for females.
males and females are in the same list.

Of course people make a list of females like list of players under age 20 but the lists are only part of a bigger list.



Uri

[Uri Blass]

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?

There is only one answer -- 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.

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.

There can be more than one answer.
Here are 2 possible explanations:

1)centaurs use better hardware than the opponent(centaurs may use some computers when they play against single computer in tournaments like free style.

2)humans can use the computer to produce better time management (for example not spending time on forced moves).

Uri

[genorb]

Finally, the better player of the game of chess is the one who wins, and that’s the machines.
Enrique

I don't doubt that best human chess players have (or will have) little (no) chance against computers which evolve thanks to software and hardware much faster than humans (physiologically it's obvious that human evolve very very slowly, but by human evolution in this context you can understand it as ability to play chess, clearly over the past century one can see some significant evolution in human chess).

However I have a question. Over the past 10 years how many games (slow time control) took place between a, let say, top 5-top 10 GM and a strong computer? (I really ask the question, I do not know). But it seems to me that this number is rather low. So the statistics might be very poor to draw conclusions...

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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....

Nothing but ad hominems, no facts and a personal attack on my integrity, implying I'm too weak a player to know what I'm talking about! You're simply wrong. I do in fact understand both GM chess and computer chess.


I reported one of your posts and it was deleted! It was deleted as you made a referrence about my state of mind, that I was delusive! You're doing it again and this is your last warning! If you do this one more time and can't show deference like a gentleman would, I'll report it!

I think you owe me an apology...

_I didn't mean to insult you,that was not my intension at all....

_What proofs you are talking about,isn't Hydra-Adams match enough prrof for you to finaly confess the superior of the machines
He played the chess engine as he's playing another human and was crushed 0,5-5,5....Can you elaborate a little bit please as your human GM chess understanding is far away from mine

_I can't understand the deep faith in the the human GM chess when everyone can see that the party for them is over,finito....try to live with that....

[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....

If you knew anything at all about the match I'm referring to then you would know he was wearing X3D Glasses, (a promotional scheme), where the manufacturers said it was ill-advised to wear their device for more than an hour due to serious eye strain which could result in severe headaches.

Kasparov was suffering from severe pain due to this device and couldn't stay focused! He had an overwhelming position against the computer and accidently made a terrible move even a player like yourself wouldn't make! He also stated publicly that he was suffering a tremendous headache due to those very same glasses!

Maybe you think this is fair sportmanship? He either wore the glasses to promote their product or there would be no match!

I think Kasparov should have turned the match down; However, I don't know if he knew ahead of time the 3D Glasses would be such a serious problem?

They were and cost Kasparov an important victory and winning the match.

In another match he offered a draw in a position that he would have won but felt the computer could draw it and offered a draw. He was turned down, but after 20 min. consulting another GM they came back and gave him the draw as they realized, backed with proof that they would lose if Kasparov continued!

These aren't excuses, they're facts!

_Hehehe,to your own information,I do even own one of these 3D glasses and I bought them then with the newest video card available in the market,so I do know what I am talking about....They're a little bit uncomfortable to use,but in no way don't cause severe headache as you stated sir....

_Now severe pain you say,eh
And even a player like myself won't make his terrible move,eh
You are day dreaming again....

_Yes,like the fact that he got the big bucks for wearing a 3D glasses,it's a fact,no doubt....

[Terry McCracken]

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....

Nothing but ad hominems, no facts and a personal attack on my integrity, implying I'm too weak a player to know what I'm talking about! You're simply wrong. I do in fact understand both GM chess and computer chess.


I reported one of your posts and it was deleted! It was deleted as you made a referrence about my state of mind, that I was delusive! You're doing it again and this is your last warning! If you do this one more time and can't show deference like a gentleman would, I'll report it!

I think you owe me an apology...

_I didn't mean to insult you,that was not my intension at all....

_What proofs you are talking about,isn't Hydra-Adams match enough prrof for you to finaly confess the superior of the machines
He played the chess engine as he's playing another human and was crushed 0,5-5,5....Can you elaborate a little bit please as your human GM chess understanding is far away from mine

_I can't understand the deep faith in the the human GM chess when everyone can see that the party for them is over,finito....try to live with that....

The Adams match was horrible and Adams played horribly! Hydra made bad endgame errors and Adams didn't even notice! He was psyched!

I know my understanding is higher than yours, I've been involved with chess and computer chess probably longer than you have been living!

Your party is over, I've enough of your disrespect! Talk to me in a decade or two.

I'm not at all interested in the opinions of kids without experience who show no courtesy to their elders! Live with that!

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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....

Nothing but ad hominems, no facts and a personal attack on my integrity, implying I'm too weak a player to know what I'm talking about! You're simply wrong. I do in fact understand both GM chess and computer chess.


I reported one of your posts and it was deleted! It was deleted as you made a referrence about my state of mind, that I was delusive! You're doing it again and this is your last warning! If you do this one more time and can't show deference like a gentleman would, I'll report it!

I think you owe me an apology...

_I didn't mean to insult you,that was not my intension at all....

_What proofs you are talking about,isn't Hydra-Adams match enough prrof for you to finaly confess the superior of the machines
He played the chess engine as he's playing another human and was crushed 0,5-5,5....Can you elaborate a little bit please as your human GM chess understanding is far away from mine

_I can't understand the deep faith in the the human GM chess when everyone can see that the party for them is over,finito....try to live with that....

The Adams match was horrible and Adams played horribly! Hydra made bad endgame errors and Adams didn't even notice! He was psyched!

I know my understanding is higher than yours, I've been involved with chess and computer chess probably longer than you have been living!

Your party is over, I've enough of your disrespect! Talk to me in a decade or two.

I'm not at all interested in the opinions of kids without experience who show no courtesy to their elders! Live with that!

_a pure sample of overreacting,don't underestimate people you don't know nothing about....

_So not sharing your opinion is a disrespect,eh
No need to wait for a decade or two,having Rybka 3 involved with ChessBase predicts a big possibility that one of your outgorgeous grandmasters will have the chance to ply the monster in a 6 or 8 games match and then shall see....

_So how old are you Terry so that I can give enough respect to my elders
No irony intended btw....

[smirobth]

_Hehehe,to your own information,I do even own one of these 3D glasses and I bought them then with the newest video card available in the market,so I do know what I am talking about....They're a little bit uncomfortable to use,but in no way don't cause severe headache as you stated sir....

_Now severe pain you say,eh

Hi Dr. Deeb,
Regarding the 3D glasses thing I think Terry has a point. 3D glasses are widely known to cause headaches in some individuals after extended wear. I believe this is due to the actual and perceived focal point of the 3D image being at different depths, causing eye strain for some people.