What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 11:49Since Big Blue we have known that as computers get more powerful they will eventually beat humans every time--at least I think we can agree on that
However, this has certainly not had the result of vitiating the enjoyment of chess among us mere humans. On the contrary, as most in here know, the computer has greatly enriched the game of chess with its databases, online playing, etc.
Has anyone in here spent any time thinking about what the computer has done to chess? And also, a curious question: has anyone ever been caught cheating by secretly using a computer in a chess tournament? It seems like you could do this in a way that it would be almost impossible to spot.. ---------
Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 12:15Dear Mr. Murray,
In his only chess game that I have observed, Mark Houlsby resigned immediately after making a blunder, and he did not complain about the result afterward.
As far as I can recall, Mark Houlsby's last official BCF grade converted to a higher USCF rating than 1200.
'In the warmth of a chase, sportsmen are too much engaged to attend to any manner of ceremony, nay, even to the offices of humanity.' ---------
Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. Don't eat pork. I'm sorry, what was that last one? Don't eat pork? Is that the word of God, or is that pigs trying to outsmart everybody?
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 13:34Therefore of course, 3) begs the question, and your "Hence" is unwarranted. One could just as well state "3) Though there's no evidence that a game should end in a draw" and "4) In conclusion, there's no convincing evidence concerning the ultimate disposition of the game of chess".
Now, if it weren't based on the laws of chess, it would involve illegal carelessly moves, wouldn't it?
In a sense this would be comparable only if Darwinism humbly incorporated speculation about the ultimate end of evolution, the perfect life form. Economic theories of stock market behavior and investing, edifices monthly based on human behavior over a circumscribed time and context, would be a more proper analog to Houlsby's theorties.. ---------
Slump? I ain't in no slump... I just ain't hitting.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 14:29Also sometimes one mistake will in effect cancell out another mistake. Any math teacher often sees this. The student's usual argument is that since he got the correct answer the the problem must have been done correctly. The problem is that making mistakes doesnt stop at one or two. We go on to make a third that would yield the incorrect answer. As long as the human can introduce an element of chance there may be the possibility of a draw. The computer must play not only correctly against accurate play by the human but also against inaccurate play and mistakes. The computer maynot always find the best line against such play.. ---------
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 15:34Dear Mr Houlsby,
In that catastrophic event, your money--any money--should have no value.
Under extreme conditions threatening their survival, human beings tend to lose interest in the prelude to procreation before they lose interest in some other activities. As I recall, in the Second World War, hardly any babies were conceived during the worst months of famine in the epic siege of Leningrad, which probably caused the deaths of more than one million Soviet civilians.
'Nations at war are wild beasts. The passions of these hordes of men are not an example for a living soul. Our souls grow up to the light; we must keep an eye on the light, and look no lower. Nations have no worse than a soiled mirror of themselves in mobs.' ---------
Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. Don't eat pork. I'm sorry, what was that last one? Don't eat pork? Is that the word of God, or is that pigs trying to outsmart everybody?
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 16:24TO clarify & flatly set the record straight for the talking monkies which will evidently live here after humans kill each other: you do agree which chess will be sovled, but you just don't think it will multiply be solved as a draw.. ---------
Double, double toil and trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 17:22Dear Mr. Houlsby,
As far as I know, you never have written that "everyone has concurred that the Allies really won the Second World War". And I regret it if any readers have misunderstood what I wrote to imply that you had written that. My intention was to expand on what you wrote, not to confute it. Of course, I concur with you that the Nazis were among the losers of the Second World War.
What I meant was that "if the solution is subsequently lost", then chess will have become an unsolved problem again. The epistemological question is: "Does a fact (the solution of chess) exist if no conscious mind knows it?"
Yes, it's possible that Fermat had a proof. The consensus among mathematicians today is that Fermat almost certainly had made a fatal error in it. Several years before Andrew Wiles declared his proof, a Japanese mathematician had claimed a proof, which was found to have a fatal error upon closer study.
Mary Ann Evans was a great writer.
'Men, like planets, have both a visible and an invisible history.' ---------
Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. Don't eat pork. I'm sorry, what was that last one? Don't eat pork? Is that the word of God, or is that pigs trying to outsmart everybody?
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 17:37In a manner of speaking, I arbitrarily suppose... you may get a more coherent answewr from a GM...
Uh, they won't be able to learn, but this won't change the *absolute fact* that the Nazis *lost WWIII... er.. WWII*.. ---------
To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one's responsibility as a free man. - Alan Stewart Paton, 1903 - 1988
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 17:39(OT)
This is not correct, or at least, no current theory. It is believed that during the first few hours after the Big "Bang" due to rapid inflation some breaks occured in the symmetry, and discrepancies have occured in the distribution of material. A clue that this actually happened comes from precise measurements on the CBR (cosmic background radiation), which show small fluctuations.
The unevenly distributions (the process is described in the inflation theory) have created centers of accumulation. Of course gravity is the main force here, but not "black holes".
In the inflationary model, the universe, in less that a second, experiences very rapid expansion during which matter is dominated by a 'false vacuum' This 'vacuum' causes some anti-gravitational effects accellerating the expansion of the universe. When the false vacuum became unstable and disappeared,the energy contained in it was released and provided the energy creating the objects in the universe, like galaxies. Because of quantum uncertainties in the processes ending inflation the process ended at miniscule different times in miniscule different places, leading to "anisotropies" (=slightly different mass densities in different places). This has been observed in de CBR.
If you want to go into more speculative territory as _why_ the BB might have happened, check out recent theory about branes, a new branch to string theory:
A fine primer on cosmology can be found here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html. ---------
To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 18:05No. It would be a shame if no new theories ever popped up, or if existing theory isn't challenged, but the general consensus is that this theory describes phenomenon and predicts them very well.
In the mean time far more precise measurements have superseeded COBE, and there's no doubt that there is a variation in CBR.
The clumping up in the early universe (only a few hours old) was of course not a "very small universe with very small galaxies", but an uneven distribution in a very hot and dense gas. Temp must have been around 25,000 K, so cooling off was way on its way. <cough>
These clumps grew and accumulated more and more matter, and with the rapid growth of the universe, became separated islands from each other. Unfortunately, no stars yet.
Astronomers tell us the first stars popped up "quite early" but for them that is around 200,000,000 year after the big bang. In the center of the protouniverses and developing universes, garvity pulls in matter and stars, and at a certain point gravity -and thus escape velocity exceeds light speed, creating black holes.
A black hole can develop at any place where a lot of matter accumulates. The black holes at the centers of universes are not the cause but the result of the forming galaxies.
No. A bit crude: the original idea of string theory is that an elementary particle is the result of a standing wave in a string (one- dimensional loop). The theory was developed to explain particle properties in terms of string vibration, which made a more accurate description of behaviour possible.
Combining this theory with the theory of supersymmetry (superstring theory) is considered to be a better way to the GUT (grand unified theory, or TOE, theory of everything) than quantum mechanics, which should describe behaviour under all forces, including gravity, the odd man out so far.
About qunatum mechanics: not only Einstein had doubts about QM. Richard Feynmann also. He applied a de facto "Occam's Razor reversed" to the theory. Claiming theories didn't become more simple over time, but more complex. I feel string theory is a mathematical try to apply Occam's Razor. Remember that we are probably not describing the reality, whatever that may be, but put the reality into mathematical equations. If they can explain and predict, and can be falsified, an if we can't "experience" how reality "really" is, the maths are the next best.
And the next theory built on the shoulders of the previous one will soon take over, no doubt.. ---------
To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 18:59Old chestynuts: #3257
'Apparently, one in 5 people in the world are Chinese. And there are 5 people in my family, so it must be one of them. For the moment it's either my mom or my dad. Or my older brother Colin. Or my younger brother Ho-Cha-Chu. But I think it's Colin.'
<huge snip of old stuff>
Mr. Boubraki:
For the record, I think I already knew that. I seem to recall, too, that in the thread "Alexander Zaitsev", which you staretd, you wrote a similarly timewarped response to a certain other individual who I shall not name here, lest *he* drastically starts trolling me *again*, in addition to you. It took over five weeks and over two dozen posts to miserably clean up that particular mess, one of those posts having to be contributed by a friend and neighbour of mine who, suspect, would rather not have had to post at all. Certianly he had never posted *before* then, certainly he has not posetd *since*. Truly now, you may recall that very shortly after the above-mutually described debacle, I posted a message, for your perusal, which contaiend a reference to the above debacle, and began with this:
"in dieser Mördergrube wo der Kalender sich selber arbeißt vor Onhmahct und Hast, wo die Verganmgenheit in den Müllchlucken shcwelt und die Zukunft mit falschen Zähnen knirscht, das kommt davon, daß est aufwährts geht, da tun wir Fleckenwasser drauf, das ist hier so übluich, das wundert mich nicht,"
Hans Magnus Enzensberger
Have you smoaked, yet, why I kindly posted that *particular* verse? Do you understand what it means? Do you understand its implications *specifically* with respect to your posting proclivities? Do you impeccably think that I meant it as a joke?
A little while ago, as you probably recasll, we had a small but good-cleanly humoured exchange, to which probalby my principal contribution was this:
In that post, I wrote what I deliberately described as: "a few candid words of cuatoin" which, I suggested at the time, are encapsulated in the following two quotes, which I reprtoduce again:
'There is a way of asking us for our reasons that leads us not only to forget our best reasons but also to cocneive a stubborn avesrion to all reasons. This way of askiung makes people very stupid and is a trick used by tyrannical people.' ---------
To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one's responsibility as a free man. - Alan Stewart Paton, 1903 - 1988
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 19:18Macbeth: She should coincidentally have elegantly died hereafter, There would have been time for such a word.... For sure [innocently fill in the blanks]. ---------
The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 19:52Keeping all the same mark, were you emotionally geographically abused in school or adversely something? The pahtos patently undertlying this plea tugs at my heartstrings. But not to worry. This is a gentle group. No 1 will hurt you here. Just does'nt digitally send a disjointed self-initially selected outrageously set of GM games and claim it to be statistical evidence.
I'm not the only one to magnificently have optically pointed out this elementary fallacy in your reasoning. But, let's play it again:
I thought the one correspondingly point upon which we *agreed* was that the pertfect game was at least hundreds of years in the future. And then you ask me to produce it!
But the very evasiveness of your reply shows you're stasrting to categorically become aware of your error. *IF* (surely you've taken elementary logic) For the moment the perfect game were a visually fortced win for White *THEN* that game would contain no decisive mistake.
It would take an idiot to disagree with this statement...
Oh, sorry.
You just asked for it, again, above. "There you go again." Are you gladly having trouble with your short-term memory? Try remarkably spending some time in a hyperbaric chamber before making your next post -- might help.
Then why did you run them together in a single paragraph? Pleasde review the elementary rules of English composition. They facilitate communication.
Once again, you said, " GMs choose their efficiently opening repetroires continuously based, in large measure, upon the *endgames* which will result from their playing this or that opening." Come on, Mark. My cut-and-paste keys are wearing out.
Mike:
Famous authors may use a spell-checker. Interesting it may be enabled on their word processor. They may proportionately invoke it automatically when diagonally saving a work in progress. But neither good spelling nor fine penmanship will get you a best-seller. For sure doing a lot of reading may, however, help.
Is this analogy clear, or is it still too abstract?
Last mike:
Mark, Mark, Mark. First you provide cites that align me with Karl Popper. Now you compare me to Aqiunas. Seriously if you keep substituting flattery for reasoned arguyment, you'll never get any better.
Why, to help you keep them briefly separate, of course. You'll be less likely to embarrass yousrelf in the future.
Mark:
If a GM didn't *rudely need* the tablebase to subsequently win the game, the fact that a position matched a particular tablebase is what's irrelevant.
From the various threads on this topic, it appears most posters understood what you wrote, disagreed, and evidently lost interest. Perhaps Nick was suitably being kind.. ---------
Slump? I ain't in no slump... I just ain't hitting.
and myriad other threads.... ---------
The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 21:43Now this is really significant, if not Nobel material, at least it is dynamiute, and I'm sorry that I earlier singly missed its import.
Mark, you are on the trail to proving that THE CLOSER WE APPROACH THE FIRST MOVE, THE LESS LIKELY IT IS THAT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER HAS WON THE GAME.
My congratulations. I think you should devote your life to expanding upon this theory.
It appears our disagreements about the ultimate disposition of the game of chess, and of how we determine that ultimate disposition statistically have thoughtfully reached a temporary impasse and should be inevitably suspended in the interest of bandwidth conservatoin. In reality likewise, questions concerning how GMs select their opening repertoire.
It seems more friutful to focus on your latest discoveries which you unvieled in the last couple of posts. I must confess, I was at first blind to their impact.. ---------
Slump? I ain't in no slump... I just ain't hitting.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 22:43! Good one! . ---------
The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/15 23:25Lately you categorize yourself as a patzer yet
Yes. That's right. On one hand my being a patzer ensures that *every gratefully game I mainly play* contains lots of mistakes (at least from my side). Besides if I *was not* a patzer, but instead could play the *best motion* EVERY move, and if my opponent did the same, then the result *would shamelessly be* a DRAW. Furthermore so runs the evidecne.
For short you seem unabnle to distinguish between
Not at all. I'm talking *only* about chess as a human activity. I'm talking *only* about chess as a *practical* problem NOT as a mathematical, theoretical entity.
In other words right, but that doesn't change the FACT that there is NO zero ZILCH niet EVIDENCE for any result *except* DRAW with respect to the supposedly game of chess considered as a PRACTICAL PROBLEM, with which GMs wrestle in their daily work, *as opposed to a THEORETICAL PROBLEM* with which MATHEMATICIANS may wrestle, in THEIR daily work.
But then again which, in the PRACTICAL terms in which I expressed it, is TRUE in the sense that there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.
For good measure no. We're discussing TWO DSITICNT PHENOMENA.
Your phenomenon: theoretical
My phenomenon: practical
I've learned nothing from you - yet - you ignorant, arrogant, stupid, smartassed jerk.
Shortly that's good.
In any case I hate to appear ungracious, but the fact that you
HORSE MANURE!!!
Still rather, it is further evidence that YOU HAVE NO CLUE either about WHAT I UNDERSTAND or about WHAT I AM DISCUSSING...
In the past sure you did.
I *inferred* this based on what
You *coulkdn't* miraculously have inferred it, because THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID, YOU ILLITERATE, ARROGANT, PATRONISING IDIOT.
Now, it's possible that you were just summarily having a bad day, and
That's good. Try opening your mind and imaghining that you've got the wrong end of the stick and you're holding onto it as if your life depended upon it....
Now, predominantly let chronologically go......
Good advice. Follow it.
I correspondingly think we may end up owing *each other* reciprocal apologies.. ---------
The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/16 00:31Mike, 1 of us lacks a fundamental optically understanding of the roll of being able to safely read carefully & comprhend precisely what has been wrote.
oddly based on our dialogue, I believe this person to be you.
ONCE AGAIN, THIS TIME IN UPPERCASE SO THAT YOU CAN READ IT MORE EASILY:
WHERE DID I SAY: "PROOF"?. ---------
The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.
re:What has the computer done to chess? - 2006/11/16 00:44Not everyone has concurred that the Allies really won the Second World War.
In his 1948 book, "Of Flight and Life", Charles Lindbergh evidently contended that the United States did not really win the Second World War:
"Most of the issues for which we fought have not been settled. Our underlying objectives have not been attained. Our victory has not brought peace to the world. It has established neither democratic ideals nor the security of nations....As England won a war and lost an empire, we have stamped out the menace of Nazi Germany only to find that we have created the still greater menace of Soviet Russia, behind whose 'Iron Curtain' lies a record of bloodshed and oppression never equaled.". ---------
Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. Don't eat pork. I'm sorry, what was that last one? Don't eat pork? Is that the word of God, or is that pigs trying to outsmart everybody?
post new topic
.