Does any one want to play me in chess?

[contrapunctus]

If you are ready to lose then contact me at my AIM screename on my prifile and I will tell you how to play over the Internet. I need some mental stimulation.

[zheer]

OK, send me a message, i will worn you this my take a long time.I mean playing the game chess.

[nicolaievich]

I am installing AIM... 

[contrapunctus]

OK, send me a message, i will worn you this my take a long time.I mean playing the game chess.

How am I supposed to send you message if you don't tell me your AIM thing.

And I am usually on the comp. from 9-10:30 pm Central standard time, but I can stay longer If I need to.

And I would have to say that I quite invinsible in chess, especially blitz.

[stevie]

why did i misread the thread title as INCHES

[leahcim]

why did i misread the thread title as INCHES

You thought someone had been sent to meet her?

[nicolaievich]

so you are invincible? let's check that out...
my AIM Screen Name is nicolaievich. how do we play?

[gilad]

please tell us when you kick his butt.

[prometheus]

What's your rating?

I have only been playing really seriously for about three months now. But my playing is actually quite good. Not at the serious club player level yet, of course. That would be impossible.

[leahcim]

so you are invincible? let's check that out...

Probably a good comparison of processor speed if the game is timed

[nicolaievich]

Probably a good comparison of processor speed if the game is timed

Good point, but I think I don't need a computer to win 

I don't know my rating exactly. I think it's about 1500 ELO (not too much) just an intermediate level. So I will lose probably hehe but a match is a match.

[prometheus]

Computers are terribly weak strategical. An average chess player vs a poor one both using a computer and the average player should easily win. This is actually called advanced chess.

[leahcim]

Computers are terribly weak strategical. An average chess player vs a poor one both using a computer and the average player should easily win. This is actually called advanced chess.

Yes, but you're just handwaving. The program matters, the particular computer matters and the player matters.

Kasparov has lost to a computer after all, few are going to consider him "average" or "poor", nor suggest that he's not playing "advanced" chess. So there's a counter-example.

But no doubt lots have beaten computers against less powerful machines, with poorer algorithms. I doubt the "average" player requires something of deep blue's spec to be beaten by one though, otherwise they should probably give Kasparov a ring and arrange a match.

However, I predict anyone who announces their playing with the words "I'm invincible" rather than "I play chess and I have rating of xxxx" like most chess players do, is either intending to use a computer or lose, possibly both

[prometheus]

I am not sure you understand. First of all, Kasparov at his best was the best chess player ever, he was amazing. Secondly, advanced chess is player & computer vs player & computer. Yes, computers can beat the top players at this time, but they have also lost and drawn on occasion. But this really doesn't matter. Computers can't play chess, they just calculate as many positions that could occur as possible. They are just very very strong tactical. Plus, because there are a limited amount of positions that can occur the computer could just find the best move in its database by comparing similar positions. This is done in the opening and endgame. Don't forget that the average go player whipes the floor with every computer, no matter how powerful.

Actually, a lot of people think Deep Blue was helped by a human hired by IBM, and that is also what Kasparov believes.

Someone that rarely plays chess has a rating of 800-900. A chess grandmaster has a rating of 2400+, Kasparov's higest rating has been 2851. Fritz 9 claims to have the strenght of 2954. And a advanced chess duo would rate over 3000.

The point is, if both players use a chess engine then the better player will win. I bet that Topalov using a commecial program like Fritz would beat a monster computer like Hydra.

Personally I find human vs computer matches kind of silly. There is really no point behind it. Didn't we already know that computers are better calculators?

I agree with your last statement.

[rc]

Personally I find human vs computer matches kind of silly. There is really no point behind it. Didn't we already know that computers are better calculators?

hahah! no kidding. It's probably more interesting from a programming standpoint than from a chess perspective. I have no interest in playing against a machine, whether or not it beats me. To me chess is about two minds competing.

It sort of reminds me of how my younger siblings will immediately look for cheats for any new videogame they get, so they can't possibly lose, entirely defeating the purpose of playing the game.

A good idea though! I haven't played chess in ages, I'll have to get ahold of some friends tonight and set up a game or two of unsophisticated chess. Gonna be brutal

[leahcim]

I am not sure you understand.

I'm sure I did. You said an average player + computer would beat a poor player + computer.

There's no general principle afaict.

If the program is strong enough to easily beat both, what advantage does the average player bring? They may as well be monkeys operating the keyboard if their choice of moves isn't as good.

Of course that's not always the case, but that's where words like "average" "poor" and not specifying which computer and which program are handwaving rather than making specifics.

Computers can't play chess, they just calculate as many positions that could occur as possible. They are just very very strong tactical.

Well yeah, but before you start being pedantic you should make your mind up Obviously computers are programmed and yes, most of the algorithms used are calculating not learning or adapative etc.

But any mention folk have made of computers playing chess is made in exactly the same way that you speak of the computer playing chess with phrases like "They are weak at strategy" or "they are very very strong tactically" - neither of which is true because they can't play chess they are just calculators

I'm sure most can take the fact that the computer is programmed for granted.

Similary, you acknowledge that computers don't always win, yet say they can "just" find the best move from a limited set by looking in a database similar to openings and endgames. If they could find "the best move" they would always win [or presumably draw against another algorithm that could pick the best move] But there is no such thing as "the best move"

Albeit you're right to note that the search space is less than go, the space is big and there is no search which will give a definitive move from which a win is inevitable from all positions irrespective of what your opponent does in response. Even if you had time to search the whole space, "best move" at that point is some weighted heuristics or similar - far from "just" searching, it's the difference between a program that beats kasparov and one that doesn't.

It might be easy to dismiss the machine as a calculator, but I think there is more complexity to what IBM did than you suggest, even if part of their success today is tin.

Actually, a lot of people think Deep Blue was helped by a human hired by IBM, and that is also what Kasparov believes.

Yes, which partly negates your argument IMO - albeit Kasparov didn't have a computer, he is neither average nor poor, so I don't see why he shouldn't have won against this human as his whinge implies that he felt stronger than the computer. [If I were the guy I'd happily take the credit]

[prometheus]

Are you just refusing to understand or don't you play chess seriously?

Chess engines will make a lot of strategical mistakes, even very simple ones, because the way they work totally ignore this. And programmers have no choice in this because of the nature of computers.

So when a chess engine and a chess player work together they will be stronger together because they compliment each other. The chess engine will avoid all weak moves from a tactical point of view while the human will make sure there is a strategical plan behind all this.

In the end tactics and material are irrelevant. The game is won by mating the king, not by scoring points.

Surely programmers have come a long way programming smarter computers that do not require a lot of calculation power. But this doesn't change the fact that if both players use a computer the strategy of the human will give that duo a slight edge. And even the slightest edge in high level chess can win a game.

Just try it out for yourself.

[leahcim]

Are you just refusing to understand or don't you play chess seriously?

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with all of it.

e.g saying that "even the slightest edge in high level chess can win a game" I'd agree with.

But phrases like "Smarter computers" and "programmers have no choice in this because of the nature of computers" aren't even wrong I take it you don't play with computers seriously?

But I thought you originally said something about about average and poor players? To me those aren't people who play chess seriously [or if they do, they clearly haven't reached a high standard, in spite of that]

I'd say they'd mostly lose [or use the 'back' function and/or look at the "thinking" bit a lot to pick their move ] against a computer. So they'd lose if they made moves against those recommended given another player, even a weaker one, who [if he was intelligent, even if not as good at chess] would use the recommended moves.

But, as I said,  I don't think there is a general rule, especially with handwaving "average" and "poor" descriptions. In "serious chess" if that's your goal, aiui you wouldn't talk about "average" or "poor" but you'd be more likely to use a numerical rating. At which point the relative strength of the players you were talking about [and the computer and program] might be more clear and your point more valid. The poorer player is likely to lose if the other player is stronger than his program without a doubt - aside from the fact that to err is human and the computer will probably punish a mistake more than a poorer player will, who might not even spot it, as well as making his own.

I've no doubt at all that strong players can beat computers, especially run of the mill general processors and average algorithms, however that's not always the case these days.

Aiui, especially in the past, those strong players have used specific strategies designed to attack the weakness of older computers rather than the kind of strategy they'd use against a human player - so much that they don't value the games w.r.t developing strategy and improving their game against human players - but nevertheless it is a strategy based approach as you say.

[contrapunctus]

However, I predict anyone who announces their playing with the words "I'm invincible" rather than "I play chess and I have rating of xxxx" like most chess players do, is either intending to use a computer or lose, possibly both

The reason I did not state rating for me is because I don't have one. I stopped playing in USCF tournaments when I was 12, so I don't have a rating.


The reason I said that I was invincible was to incite someone to want to play me, simple as that.

I do not even own a chess computer program either.


For the computer debate. Computers can calculate every single move possible on a chess board at a given time. (I think there are 1*10^35 total moves in the game of chess) A computer can look at all these moves and decide which is the best because they can look ahead an innumerable number of moves, unlike a grandmaster who can look ahead about 7 or 8. They can also develop tactics and plans because of this. The only thing a human has on a computer is instinct. This is why, if playing a computer, it is always wise to lead them into closed locked games where they cannot look ahead very far and cannot use instinct to decide a path of play.
They aslo cannot use the info supplied by the other players moves to decide what the other player will do next because they do not have the capacity to learn.

Bobby fischer was better than kasparov till he went nutts anyways.



To play me in chess you must give me your AIM screen name to put on my buddy list so I can tell when you are online. If you are online then I will IM you with the instructions on how to play. Nicolaievich, you are never on when I am on. I am on from 9-10:30 pm central standard time usually.

[cfortunato]

Computers are very poor strategically, but they can be tactical killers.  The weird result of this is that a computer may well play better than you do, but playing it doesn't improve your game, and in fact may weaken it.

[nicolaievich]

To play me in chess you must give me your AIM screen name to put on my buddy list so I can tell when you are online. If you are online then I will IM you with the instructions on how to play. Nicolaievich, you are never on when I am on. I am on from 9-10:30 pm central standard time usually.

I think my AIM is not working well because when I click on Connect button it says "Validating..." and it stays like that.
Anyways, I usually don't connect at that time, but now that I know you go online that time I will try to do it.
See you around.

[prometheus]

Uuh, surely at this time most comptuters will beat grandmasters because computers do not make mistakes and do not have emotions, etc. This isn't part of my point. I also don't understand what you are talking about when you talk 'handwaving' and poor and average players. A poor player would be someone who doesn't even know the rules or someone who doesn't play regularly. An average player would be someone with a rating of 1600 or so.

Since computers perform close to 3000 these days the computer will beat them both easily. But if two people are playing against each other and they both use the same chess enige/computer to check their moves then the average chess player using the chess engine will play better than the chess engine alone. And the poor player will either just play the same moves as the chess engine would anyway or make just as many strategical errors. So the better chess player will win.


About playing against a computer, this is very awkward, strange and unnatural. It's almost anti-chess. Yes you are playing against a mindless tactical killer. It will spoil the game, it will play anti-chess. It will not add any creativity to the game and just take it away. At least that is my experience. I don't think you can learn to play chess against a computer. I used to do it but I don't think it had much effect. This still is kind of strange, though. Playing againt a human is so much more insightful. You can't get a grip on a computer, it's thoughts elude you, since it doesn't have any.


Think about it, deep blue needed to calculate 200 million positions a second to be able to beat Kasparov. Surely Kasparov doesn't calculate 199 million positions a second. The way computers find their moves just isn't a very good one. You need to calculate very far ahead for this way of thinking to work.

Think about it, the way a chess engine evaluated a position is going to be very important. The program will just mindlessly follow the evaluation guidelines the programmers put into it. This is not very flexible. So the chess engine may get too materialistic and pick material over a good position. Positions will arise where the computer will evaluate the position incorrectly.

Also, in a lot of positions there are several playable moves. The chess engine may not see which move is the best but a human may. Also, a good tactical move may be a bad strategical one. If you look at some games played by computers you will see that they do make stupid moves because they do not understand the game. This is true in closed positions where there are little tactics and a lot of strategy and positional play involved. Computers will just make senseless move and draw. The best thing normal people have is Fritz. Grandmasters have been able to draw the program in several matches by playing anti-computer chess where the program just played senseless moves, wasting their turn.

[leahcim]

I also don't understand what you are talking about when you talk 'handwaving' and poor and average players. A poor player would be someone who doesn't even know the rules or someone who doesn't play regularly. An average player would be someone with a rating of 1600 or so.

That more or less. A description of what you meant by poor, average. Which computer they have, what program it is running etc. Now the caveats like "they both use the same computer..." are added and the description is narrowed we concur that average + computer v poor + computer who will win depends on a number of factors, rather than some general statement that the average guy does.

Because I didn't agree with the generality made by your original comment.
Less so if "poor" means they don't know the rules - that to me isn't a chess player at all.

Although you reiterate the known differences between the computer and Kasparov and repeat what 2 or 3 have already said about playing against computers, aiui there's a difference between the way he plays and your "average" and "poor" players too as stuff like this https://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D6901-5172-1C60-B882809EC588ED9F
discusses. I don't know if it's been refuted, but if you want to get better it might be worth looking into.

[prometheus]

Having a discussion with you is such a nuisance. Of course I meant that. My point has been pretty clear from the beginnging. What the hell are you fishing for?

I never said that a poor chess player is someone who doesn't know the rules. I said  that a poor chess player ranges from a person that doesn't know the rules to someone who doesn't play regulary. So that would be everyone below a rating of 1200 or something. I said that because these people generally don't know any strategy and because there isn't a difference between a person that doesn't know the rules and one that plays for fun against a friend once in a while. But a player with a rating of 1600 would be able to add something to the computer. She or he would be able to focus the calculations of the computer into real chess playing.

Yes, I have to repeat stuff several times because you choose to ignore it so we can have this stupid argument about nothing, which you seem to love to do for some reason.

About that article, surely grandmasters thing different from normal people when playing chess. But it is not clear what 'amateur' here means. What ratings are we talking about. A good chess player will of course recognise most positions and know exactly what is happening and what she or he needs to do. This process already starts above 1400 points or so.

[leahcim]

I never said that a poor chess player is someone who doesn't know the rules. I said  that a poor chess player ranges from a person that doesn't know the rules to someone who doesn't play regulary.

It's nearly pantomime season I guess.

Oh yes you did

My point has been pretty clear from the beginnging.

Yes, and I disagreed with the generalisation you made which you decided meant I didn't understand it.
If you don't want the discussion, don't click "reply"

However you have clarified some aspects when you were given a counter-example and I said we now concur.

there isn't a difference between a person that doesn't know the rules and one that plays for fun against a friend once in a while.

Please, don't be ridiculous. Of course there is a difference between knowing the rules of chess and not knowing them. "average" as in the original post meant nothing just as you ask what "amateur" means in that article. Average of what?

"Computer" means nothing, did you mean deep blue, fritz or a zx81? See? You made a general statement.

You make general statements like "computers today have a rating of 3000". Which is rubbish. Some might, but there's no generality that a computer chess program has a rating in 2005 of around 3000.

So average person with "average" unspecified + an unspecified computer versus poor, with poor unspecified + unspecified computer, both with an unspecified algorithm, has no general "the average guy wins" result.

When you go on to say "poor means either can't or won't play", "computers are still unspecified but the same" and "average means a rating of 1600 or whatever" we concur that the original statement was meaningless afaict.

Yes, I have to repeat stuff several times because you choose to ignore it so we can have this stupid argument about nothing, which you seem to love to do for some reason.

I said you were repeating what others had said, not what you had said.

But it is not clear what 'amateur' here means

Exactly it's not clear what rating etc if you just use some meaningless subjective term. For example you just said "a good player" and gave a rating of 1400 - to me "good" is usually better than average. Whereas to you "average player" has a rating higher than a "good player"

Did you write the article? I'm sure the study itself gives the details.

[prometheus]

Just *** off then...

[leahcim]

Just *** off then...

If I assume *** that says what I think it does, I know you certainly can't

[lostinidlewonder]

Well from my understanding the super computer Hydra is unbeatable and many grandmasters have tried and the best they have achieved is draw. https://www.hydrachess.com/main.cfm

So computers are extremely strong and to say they are strategically weak is not true. They can calculate a lot of the strategy away and play with powerful artificial logic.

The best chances humans have against computers is in the endgame, the opening and the middle it is uselss for humans to try and make a win, however subtle advantages may be able to be converted through the end games which is often seen when grandmasters beat strong computers.

Even Fritz on weak Mhz processor is rated at a strong International Masters 2400+ strength. But these weaker computer definatly suffer from closed positions calculations and opening like the hippopotamus formation white playing a3, b3, Bb2, d3, Nd2, e3, Ne2, g3, Bg2 and h3. And white denies pawn exchanges, usually a weaker computer as black will not realise that pushing the f pawn or the c will win his chances early on. So white aims to 0-0-0 if black has 0-0 and open with f4 and play kingside with a locked position. Often in these positions the computers will fail to see the long term plans which will force a win.

[nicolaievich]

My AIM is working now, so let's play

[contrapunctus]

My AIM is working now, so let's play

my buddy list says your never on, your screen name is nicolaievich, right?

[nicolaievich]

my buddy list says your never on, your screen name is nicolaievich, right?

Yes, that's my screen name. I think that the problem is that we do not match the time we connect. I am -3 hours GMT.