20 Years Later, Humans Still No Match For Computers

[Sean Evans]

20 Years Later, Humans Still No Match For Computers On The Chessboard

Polgar says computers are great training aids for her chess teams. And she says, computers have solved several age-old chess problems — questions of how to win when there are very few pieces on the board.

Soltis is less charitable to the machines that humans programmed to play chess, and that now beat their former masters routinely. They may have nerves of silicon. They may be indefatigable and immune to psychological distraction. But Soltis says they haven't imparted much wisdom about the game.

"We sort of had a social contract, we thought, with the computers many years ago," Soltis says. "We would teach them how to play chess. They would teach us more about chess. They haven't lived up to their side of the bargain."

Soltis thoughts are very deep and philosophical; however, I cannot reconcile his conclusion to the facts. Can anyone explain to me what Soltis is talking about? What am I missing here?

To me chess computers have advanced chess knowledge dramatically in both the opening, endgame and post-mortem analysis making bots a powerful training tool.

Thank you,

Sean

[lkaufman]

I suppose he means that computers have not given us new principles to guide our play in the middlegame. I have learned a couple new principles from working on Komodo, but these are not available to the world yet. But computers have shown us by their evaluation functions which principles are important and which are not.

[Dann Corbit]

I think the valuable thought here is that we should think long and hard about how to use computers to teach US something.

I think visualization techniques might be very helpful. An example is the way that Wilhelm displayed endgame techniques. Another example is the way that ChessMaster would give a human-like explanation of move choices if you requested that option. Also, the TCEC gui has lots of features that show game progress in a visual way.

I also like the way that Les Fernandes' tool will show the values for piece placement.

I guess what I am saying is that we are making the engines stronger and stronger and yet we are not putting much effort into enabling them to teach us anything new.

So the chess engines burn away in the background, building someone a nice number on some chess playing forum. But nobody will ever read the games and we have not moved forward in our games much.

[Milos]

I guess what I am saying is that we are making the engines stronger and stronger and yet we are not putting much effort into enabling them to teach us anything new.

So the chess engines burn away in the background, building someone a nice number on some chess playing forum. But nobody will ever read the games and we have not moved forward in our games much.

You think Steven Hawking could teach Amazon Indians something they'd deem useful???
I really don't think so.

[Dann Corbit]

I guess what I am saying is that we are making the engines stronger and stronger and yet we are not putting much effort into enabling them to teach us anything new.

So the chess engines burn away in the background, building someone a nice number on some chess playing forum. But nobody will ever read the games and we have not moved forward in our games much.

You think Steven Hawking could teach Amazon Indians something they'd deem useful???
I really don't think so.

I think that he could teach them all kins of interesting things. And vice versa.

[MikeB]

20 Years Later, Humans Still No Match For Computers On The Chessboard

Polgar says computers are great training aids for her chess teams. And she says, computers have solved several age-old chess problems — questions of how to win when there are very few pieces on the board.

Soltis is less charitable to the machines that humans programmed to play chess, and that now beat their former masters routinely. They may have nerves of silicon. They may be indefatigable and immune to psychological distraction. But Soltis says they haven't imparted much wisdom about the game.

"We sort of had a social contract, we thought, with the computers many years ago," Soltis says. "We would teach them how to play chess. They would teach us more about chess. They haven't lived up to their side of the bargain."

Soltis thoughts are very deep and philosophical; however, I cannot reconcile his conclusion to the facts. Can anyone explain to me what Soltis is talking about? What am I missing here?

To me chess computers have advanced chess knowledge dramatically in both the opening, endgame and post-mortem analysis making bots a powerful training tool.

Thank you,

Sean

I agree with you Sean - maybe for the first time ever.

But my knowledge prior to computers with to respect to chess was nil relative to GM's knowledge. But I would say I learned more about chess from one book , than every thing put together I learned about chess from computers - so maybe he does have a point.

btw , this is the book:

The Soviet Chess Conveyor, by Mikhail Shereshevsky (Author), Evgeni Ermenkov (Translator). If you find a paperpack version, it will cost you about $100.

[reflectionofpower]

Soltis thoughts are very deep and philosophical; however, I cannot reconcile his conclusion to the facts. Can anyone explain to me what Soltis is talking about? What am I missing here?

To me chess computers have advanced chess knowledge dramatically in both the opening, endgame and post-mortem analysis making bots a powerful training tool.

Thank you,

Sean[/quote]

I agree with you Sean - maybe for the first time ever.

But my knowledge prior to computers with to respect to chess was nil relative to GM's knowledge. But I would say I learned more about chess from one book , than every thing put together I learned about chess from computers - so maybe he does have a point.

btw , this is the book:

The Soviet Chess Conveyor, by Mikhail Shereshevsky (Author), Evgeni Ermenkov (Translator). If you find a paperpack version, it will cost you about $100.[/quote]

I have seen where it was mentioned you could get it for $8 as an EBook but it is not cheap in paper form. I am assuming that is because it is out of print.

[corres]

Once upon a time a Hungarian GM said that a GM look at the table and he knows what should move - the muddler calculates only.
I think that engines prove the importance of calculation for a GM also.
Especially the consideration of threats are very important.
This attitude is noticeable well the play of Carlsen, Caruana, Kramnik, Anand, Nakamura, Harikrishna, Leko etc.
I think engines support the truth of Petrosian.

[reflectionofpower]

Once upon a time a Hungarian GM said that a GM look at the table and he knows what should move - the muddler calculates only.
I think that engines prove the importance of calculation for a GM also.
Especially the consideration of threats are very important.
This attitude is noticeable well the play of Carlsen, Caruana, Kramnik, Anand, Nakamura, Harikrishna, Leko etc.
I think engines support the truth of Petrosian.

I agree,intuition,"sight of board",patterns. You will see what needs to be done pretty quickly but now and then you have to think about a combination or a complex position. I don't know how many games I have gone over of the all time greats and found errors galore because a GM thought he saw what needed to be done.

[corres]

In the old times chess play was considered as a kind of Art but now it is only a branch of sport to gain money.