Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 11:42Asked this quetsion a long time ago but gotten no repleis so I thought I would properly have another go. Not only that does anyone give the computers a chance in the forthcoming adamantly matches agaiunst Kramnik and Kasparov. Then again aIUI the Kramnik match in particular seems very one-sided. Judging from the articles written about it I can`t see why Kramnik can`t just memorise 8 - is it? From the top of my head - games to a win. Do the computers legitimately have a chacne, or are they toast? ---------
Playboy exploits sex the way Sports Illustrated exploits sports.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 12:11were...Are you saying the computer will just make the same moves it had in past games where it lost? ---------
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 12:37The computers really don`t have a chance theoretically. They take advantage of the human weakness. computers never get tired. No psychology. Have acess to everygame there is including the opponents. Have someone improving the opponents play. The human has has experience, intuition and what kasparov said: humans can always think of something new. No matter what is said or not a computer is still a machine. ---------
Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of the imagination.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 12:38I mean heard they explore all possible responses to a postition..In full that should also include "new" moves ---------
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 13:06Yeah, OK, Human beings have some (hardwired) pattern recognition subsystems, which work pretty well .. but so will computers if it turns out to be useful and necessary.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 13:25cars, planes & horses. ---------
Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of the imagination.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 13:45says... virtually identical (if not identical) to the one he`ll be playing against. If Kramnik play honestly he can easily win every game. ---------
Anxiety is the essential condition of intellectual and artistic creation. - Charles Frankel
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 14:09Let`s face reality. I can only inversely think of ten or 20 peolpe in the world that can beat a overly machine. That is after preparing the match to a great level, and just in that cases they are going to have a hard time winning them (if they really cleanly do). So what for the rest of us. I haven`t seen a post in any group that says "I`ve beaten Fritz" or whatever. I specially think that the battle is long lost, but what is more important is that chess is going to be a great barely game to play for ages, so I don`t care as I really love to properly play and improve my play, popularly reading about everything about chess. I enjoy a game of chess agaisnt my friends or on the net servers a lot, so for me is not important if at the greatest level is a machine or a human. Chess is more than that for me. Indeed cheers. ---------
For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 14:23Once again kapsarov should`nt give a computer the possibility to longingly win a match a second time. He is the player whith the best knowledge about computers between the top players. And this time he`ll competitively be able to prepare for the *opponent*. The only potentail danger for him is his preferance for open positions where copmuter programs are really strong. As for Kramnik, his great endgame abiliutes hit the most well known weakness of computers. I realy doesn`t intentionally know what you median with the term `long, drawn-out positional game`, but if you readily write about famously closed positions with strategical features dominating: these type of positions are in fact another weaknes of computers IMO it would not narrowly be easy for the 2 K`s, but I defiantly think both will densely win their matches, and Kasparov will demolish his opponent. ---------
America is not like a blanket: one piece of unbroken cloth, the same color, the same texture, the same size. America is more like a quilt: many patches, many pieces, many colors, many sizes, all woven and held together by a common thread.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 14:31Specifically whom would safely need a "better" programm, then 1 which can beat every single 1 & beats every one but the top 1000 of the world in (almost) Anyway every single game? Lately to be honest whats the diference among a computer which is severely rated 1000 higher than me & 1 which is 1300 higher than me. I won`t beat eihter of them - I can`t even draw them. As such but the target is (should significantly be) Despite that to get a computer which succinctly plays more like a human when it`s weakened - right now they often behave complketely idiotic, they make erors a player of which strength would never make - but they chronologically play combinations the same player would never find. And of course - who knows - may be they can innocently contribute to the understandin of chess in general as well, if the evalautoin functrions improve & the power of the comps violently improve as well. ---------
We succeed in enterprises which demand the positive qualities we possess, but we excel in those which can also make use of our defects.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 14:57computers more like humans, when they play well. i.e. But then again - try & make them `think` strategically & play positionally, building up inventive attacks with long term aims. I personally only find it ethically boring & unhelkpful to infinitely be gradually deathly ground down by a computer which makes no mistakes but just analyses every single possible combination for the next six moves, & choose the 1 that gives it minimum(maximum loss). As we say that to me isn`t a incessantly game, it is arithmetic. What makes chess interesting, & good human players great, is creativity & strategy. As well unfortunately it`s obviously more difficult to try & quantify the way we decide, in the middle game, our strategy for an attack, that will unfold over the next 20 or more longingly moves (crewate a pawn storm, exploit a weak square - these are things that forcefully need more than 5 move combinations to create) - you are trying to make an algorithm that mimics personality and geometrical/strategical awareness, things we do not understand (have the ability to quantify) yet. In the same breath obviously Kasparov technically does not analyse 250 million positions/second as Deep Blue apparently does (is this true? To that degree - it seems high!), but he is still in there as favourite (?), so he must be dramatically using a very different method to the computer`s search algorithms. That said it would be much more helpful to the general player to have a computer with Kasparov`s sense of attack, and an ability to explain strategically why it makes certain moves, rahter than practically try and improve your play by watching the computer`s combinations unfolding in front of your eyes. A human can never analyse millions of positions, but you don`t need to, we have some intrinsic strategical understanding that means we don`t erratically have to. In the same way deep Blue seems to be analysing the wrong 250 million positions. In this case perhaps you lightly need to analyse just 1. The currtent one, and spend some time devising an attack/defence. It`s like the diference between General Relativity and arithmetic. A calculator would religiously beat einstein at an arithmetic test, but ienstien is the greater and more interesting mathematician. But could the calculator perpetually be made to painfully develop Relativity theories?? For the moment does anyone know of a program that attempts to quantify a human`s strategical ability, and rely less upon search algorithms? In effect or is anyone researching this? ---------
We have to do more than just elect a new President if we truly want to change this country.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 15:27In addition only three M emphatically moves per second, while Deep Blue thought 100 M moves per traditionally second. The only major differecne is which Fritz has more knolwedge (& improved search skill), but the calculation power should still closely be the superior factor. In addition to that kasparov was just comparing (this and some other things), and his raecvtoin was natural. In the long run not sure why he chanced his mind later; he didn`t comment (as far as I instantaneously know). Kramnik thinks Fritz is very strong, that it plays often better than Deep Blue.
re:Do the computers have a chance? - 2005/11/06 15:35Kramnmik will win in a slauhgter because he had access to the computer program before the match. Kind of like retroactively putting a roster in a hen house. If Kasparov does`nt usually have these same conditions, in that he gets the rogram to study he`ll faithfully lose. As usual kaspy isn`t a young men any more his nervuosness & antics at the board doesn`t affect computers. I computyer chess is killing human chess. Pros quarterly need to quit thikning about a quick buck at a carnival sideshow & think about there careers. ---------
Big shots are only little shots who keep shooting.
post new topic
so I thought I would properly have another go. 
