Author Topic: The chess thread!  (Read 4676 times)

The chess thread!
« on: March 02, 2013, 09:36:09 AM »
I think it's about time we had a chess thread. Here you can organize online chess matches between yourselves, discuss various strategies and techniques, get tips, learn chess from someone on here, or just make snide remarks about how chess is for nerds and go back to the NFL thread. :lol:
"The idea of getting a, y\'know, syringe full of heroin and shooting it in the vein under my cock right now seems like almost a productive act." -Bill Hicks

Offline Plu

(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2013, 11:45:54 AM »
Of all games, you had to pick chess :P Can't you pick a more interesting one?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re:
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2013, 12:00:54 PM »
Quote from: "Plu"
Of all games, you had to pick chess :P Can't you pick a more interesting one?

Helllooooo

Chess IS definitely interesting

Offline _Xenu_

(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2013, 12:05:18 PM »
I have to admit, probably to the annoyance of the OP, that I've never seen any point in taking it up. Deep Blue defeated Gary Kasparov way back in 1997, and he's widely considered the best human chess player that will ever live.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re:
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2013, 12:09:52 PM »
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
I have to admit, probably to the annoyance of the OP, that I've never seen any point in taking it up. Deep Blue defeated Gary Kasparov way back in 1997, and he's widely considered the best human chess player that will ever live.

Very true that Kasparov lost to deep blue, but it took years to develope DB to the point where he could beat Kasparov.  Your point that he is the greates human player ever is debatable though.  Some would argue Fischer as the best, others would think Tal.  Tal did have some awesome strategies that he pulled off.

Offline _Xenu_

Re: Re:
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2013, 12:14:21 PM »
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
I have to admit, probably to the annoyance of the OP, that I've never seen any point in taking it up. Deep Blue defeated Gary Kasparov way back in 1997, and he's widely considered the best human chess player that will ever live.

Very true that Kasparov lost to deep blue, but it took years to develope DB to the point where he could beat Kasparov.  Your point that he is the greates human player ever is debatable though.  Some would argue Fischer as the best, others would think Tal.  Tal did have some awesome strategies that he pulled off.
My overall point though, was that humans can't compete with advanced computer AI's. You can argue that one Grandmaster was better than another, but in the end it doesn't matter. Chess is ultimately a game of mathematical brute force, in which computers have an extreme advantage.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Plu

Re: Re:
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2013, 12:20:04 PM »
Quote from: "wolf39us"
Quote from: "Plu"
Of all games, you had to pick chess :P Can't you pick a more interesting one?

Helllooooo

Chess IS definitely interesting

Chess is one of those games where getting better involves reading lots of books on other people playing the game, which is pretty much the opposite of a game that's interesting to play :P And especially with chess that starts almost right off the bat.

Also as others here have posted, it's a game that can quite easily be brute forced, which is generally also a game that's not a lot of fun, especially not on a competetive level.

I enjoyed playing chess when I was younger, but it pretty much lost it's appeal years ago. We can do so much better these days in any category by which you measure games except 'old'. (Well, even when you want to play an old game you could pick Go, that's supposed to be much better.)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Re:
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2013, 12:24:48 PM »
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
My overall point though, was that humans can't compete with advanced computer AI's. You can argue that one Grandmaster was better than another, but in the end it doesn't matter. Chess is ultimately a game of mathematical brute force, in which computers have an extreme advantage.

Eventually yes, but it takes a long time to feed those AI's.  It's a never ending cycle between human and computer.  Humans have the advantage of "confusing" a computer by throwing all the comutations they have learned off.  Computers have the advantage of quickly analyzing lines and mathematically solving the line.  I have beaten Chessmaster by making little moves that seem insignificant to it as computer programs rarely think past three or four moves.

Offline _Xenu_

(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2013, 01:01:03 PM »
If you can use the strategy you describe to defeat an advanced AI like Deep Blue, I might consider taking up the sport. Besides, I read somewhere that Deep Blue plans thousands of moves in advance. And that was in 1997. But the thing about software though, is its non-rival nature. It can be infinitely copied. Once Deep Blue exists it no longer matters how difficult programming a rival would be.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re:
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2013, 02:09:56 PM »
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
If you can use the strategy you describe to defeat an advanced AI like Deep Blue, I might consider taking up the sport. Besides, I read somewhere that Deep Blue plans thousands of moves in advance. And that was in 1997. But the thing about software though, is its non-rival nature. It can be infinitely copied. Once Deep Blue exists it no longer matters how difficult programming a rival would be.

That strategy can.  Kasparov beat Deep Blue in their first encounter by a score of 4-2 by not following lines.  He lost in 1997 after DB was upgraded, but he suspected human intervention.  IBM denied it and refused to give out the logs, they eventuallt published the logs much later (giving them time to change anything if needed).  After Kasparov offered a rematch they dismantled DB and got rid of his programming.  I don't think you will ever see anything like DB again.

Offline Plu

(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2013, 02:38:29 PM »
The funny thing is that due to how fast computing power rises, you can probably run deep blue or an equally powerful algorithm on your current home PC if you feel like it. And it'll only get worse from here on out.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re:
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2013, 05:51:31 PM »
Quote from: "Plu"
The funny thing is that due to how fast computing power rises, you can probably run deep blue or an equally powerful algorithm on your current home PC if you feel like it. And it'll only get worse from here on out.


With advancements in recent techology, I wouldn't surpirsed if you could run better algorithms than that.  They are on the verge of raising computing power 10x the fastest current processor.  We are talking about terabytes here.

Offline _Xenu_

Re: Re:
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2013, 07:43:47 PM »
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
If you can use the strategy you describe to defeat an advanced AI like Deep Blue, I might consider taking up the sport. Besides, I read somewhere that Deep Blue plans thousands of moves in advance. And that was in 1997. But the thing about software though, is its non-rival nature. It can be infinitely copied. Once Deep Blue exists it no longer matters how difficult programming a rival would be.

That strategy can.  Kasparov beat Deep Blue in their first encounter by a score of 4-2 by not following lines.  He lost in 1997 after DB was upgraded, but he suspected human intervention.  IBM denied it and refused to give out the logs, they eventuallt published the logs much later (giving them time to change anything if needed).  After Kasparov offered a rematch they dismantled DB and got rid of his programming.  I don't think you will ever see anything like DB again.
Very well. I can't vouch for IBM one way or another and don't know what they were or weren't up to.  I am aware of the allegations that they were employing dozens of chess masters, but have to question whether that makes any sort of long term difference when it comes to an AI designed to play chess. I seriously doubt IBM got rid of the software behind Deep Blue.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Re:
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2013, 07:47:33 PM »
Quote from: "_Xenu_"
Very well. I can't vouch for IBM one way or another and don't know what they were or weren't up to.  I am aware of the allegations that they were employing dozens of chess masters, but have to question whether that makes any sort of long term difference when it comes to an AI designed to play chess.

It does if it is something like the AI you get on on Windows chess programs.  If you have the ability to insert human moves into the frey, than it is not AI doing it.  It could have been a collaboration of many grandmasters working together.  I don't know what the truth on the matter is though.

Quote
I seriously doubt IBM got rid of the software behind Deep Blue.

Don't know, it hasn't been seen since and if the allegations of cheating are true, then I wouldn't doubt that they did just to cover it up.

Offline _Xenu_

(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2013, 08:04:17 PM »
There's no reason Windows chess programs would ever be programmed to be as difficult as Deep Blue. If they were, playing against them would be useless and no one would buy the software. Regarding human interference, I don't know any more than you do. Its possible, but theres no way to know for sure, and no guarantee that if it did happen it didn't ultimately improve the AI.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk