anyone can beat Engines. Even how perfect Engine it was.
just think deeply! 
Human Vs Computers
Sort:
I think Watson is a much better example of artificial intelligence.
I realize chess-playing computers use complex algorithms and such but eventually, as computers become faster, all that is really needed is brute force. If the computer can calculate deeply enough, quickly enough, it will always beat a human.
Watson, on the other hand, is all about correctly answering any given question by sifting through vast amounts of data and "connecting the dots", so to speak. That's much more similar to how the human brain works than any chess computer developed so far. And it's getting really good at it.
http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/index.html
floda23 wrote:
anyone can beat Engines. Even how perfect Engine it was.
just think deeply!
I'm sure it's easy for someone with your FIDE rating of 2999 but for honest folk it's getting pretty tough.
The ability of computers at chess has improved dramatically over the past decade, making them even better at sparring partners. I use them for practicing my technique in theoretically won positions: "Ninety Minutes".
More recently, I've beat Rybka from such positions. Beating Rybka from the starting position is beyond my capabilities, but Hikaru Nakamura is better than me: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/nakamura-defeats-rybka-in-a-loooong-game
I remember before chess computers. Then, when they came on the scene, I could beat them at their highest level. Not any more.
What does that mean? Well, I am just a mid-level player. I would like to hear what the top world-class players have to say on the matter. That would be more meaningful than my contemplations.
But, I have a few observations...
There may be those who hate how computers have infiltrated chess. Not I. They offer all of us many opportunities to learn, practice and play when there are no humans nearby to play against. This is a good thing.
Humans make outright blunders. I think we can all relate to, for example...
I played at a local club. My opponent was staring at the board in deep thought, while it was his turn. Two ladies, who hardly knew anything about chess, came by. One "whispered" (loud enough for me to hear...I can't see how my opponent didn't hear them): "He (meaning me) is about to take his queen". Well, my opponent made his move. On my next move...yes! I took his queen. You should have seen the horror in his face!
Computers don't make these kinds of blunders. We humans do...even the top players (I have a video clip somewhere of Garry Kasparov making a blunder...and you can see the horror on his face, too).
By the way, a week or two later, I played the same fellow. Yep. A whole new game...he is pondering and twitching and pondering...made his move...and, bingo!...I got his queen again. (He has not played me again.)
This sort of drama, you just don't get when playing a computer. Yet, I hope these computers get even better. They are already far better than how I can play. Yet, they raise the bar for all of us.
I think as humans, we need to play creatively...ways that are not "book". That way, against a computer...or against a human on the internet who is aided by a database...we have a fighting chance.
Some of the classic chess battles...Bobby Fischer, for one, comes to mind...were ingeniously creative in their strategy.
Our disadvantage against computers is their computational speed. But computers just don't "think out of the box".
I think that is our challenge against them.
After computers became strong enough to beat humans, efforts to weaken them so humans could win some games required programming them to make these sorts of blunders. For example, "Griffin," a Chessmaster "personality," will sac a knight or bishop on f2/f7 for an unsound attack in nearly every game. Weaker personalities will hang their queen; stronger ones will commit position errors, then crush you tactically.
Yes, I have seen...even now...definite blunders from the computer. These I see on the lower level of play. Chessmaster XI, for example, makes some very, very stupid moves, occasionally, on the lower level of play.
Yes, this appears to simulate a poor human player so that a poor human player has a fighting chance. In such a game, it becomes more like playing your next door neighbor than the best of what a computer has to offer.
I think this is OK. As long as one knows what they are up against. For a beginning player to knowingly play at the best of what a computer can play...well, that would be discouraging.
But, when a 1000 player sets the game play to a 1000 level computer play...I think it is fine for the computer to play at that dumbed down level.
This is like how (in my bio) Sol would spot me a rook, when I first started playing.
Maybe, then, the best player in the world will be asking the computer to spot him/her a rook. 
I think that dumbed down computers often play very unhumanlike and that such competition can be detrimental to the development of chess skill.
Computers don't play chess, they solve a chess puzzle every move they make.
floda23 wrote:
anyone can beat Engines. Even how perfect Engine it was.
just think deeply!
No, that is simply not true. Our computers aren't quite perfect, but against the best engines humans couldn't possibly get any better than a draw.
The problem is that a computer that has created for itself a huge database of every single possible combination of moves will be unbeatable...and this will definately be a reality some day.
Luckily it isn't yet, but as a logical game with strict rules and conditions, there ARE a finite number of positions on the chess board. Personally, I think that there is no winning strategy, but there IS a stalemate strategy for both players assuming perfect play.
The game from the first post was a blunder by Kramnick, human error, it happens had he not blundered it looks pretty even to me.
I have a degree in computer science, and as far as humans vs computers... I look at a computer like this...
Imagine a Bruce Lee movie
Fighting is chess
Bruce Lee is a top GM like Kramnick or Kasparov or Carlsen or Anand
The 5 badguys that gang up and get beat down by Bruce lee is the computer
For a while Bruce Lee can can beat up the seemingly endless string of bad guys because they are weak, but eventually what happens with better chess programs, and faster processors... the 5 bad guys becomes 10... then it becomes 20... then it becomes 40 and so on and so forth until...
Sadly for the humans eventually the computers will prevail due to sheer force of numbers no GM can see a million variations, a computer can
Arcturar wrote:
The problem is that a computer that has created for itself a huge database of every single possible combination of moves will be unbeatable...and this will definately be a reality some day.
Luckily it isn't yet, but as a logical game with strict rules and conditions, there ARE a finite number of positions on the chess board. Personally, I think that there is no winning strategy, but there IS a stalemate strategy for both players assuming perfect play.
The universe itself is too small to store this data.
Ziryab wrote:
Arcturar wrote:
The problem is that a computer that has created for itself a huge database of every single possible combination of moves will be unbeatable...and this will definately be a reality some day.
Luckily it isn't yet, but as a logical game with strict rules and conditions, there ARE a finite number of positions on the chess board. Personally, I think that there is no winning strategy, but there IS a stalemate strategy for both players assuming perfect play.
The universe itself is too small to store this data.
It's not that the universe is too small, it's that the number of positions in chess is more than the atoms in the universe. And we don't yet know how to store things on something smaller than an atom. To actually store all possible games in a database, you would need a new technology that uses many factors smaller than the size of an atom to store positions, or parallel universes or some other thing nobody has dreamed up yet. Way beyond our technology today. But theoretically possible.
From math, I remember "permutations and combinations". Seems to be that's what it comes down to...an extremely large quantity of both.
I just wonder, though... Could it not be possible to calculate (hey...these computers can calculate, I seem to recall, a billion or more calculations per second)...just, for example, four moves ahead...maybe five.
IOW, if that were possible, all that storage of databases would not seem to be necessary. Just speculating...
My engines are usually seven moves deep during the time it takes to open the program. Nine moves deep takes some time, but they get there. In complex middlegames, I rarely see them going deeper.
redbirdtpat has a point that after certain breakthroughs in storage technology the universe may contain enough atoms to store all chess moves, but I suspect we are still centuries from having twelve-piece tablebases on a hard-drive. Someone mentioned in the past day or so that eight piece tablebases are well outside present computing capabilities even though you can download all the six-piece if you have 1.2 TB available for storage.
I think we are centuries, if not millenia, away from being able to store every possible chess position. Since the number of atoms in the universe isn't enough to store every possible position, it has to be something smaller than an atom. I think with the current string theory in physics, an "average" string is posited to be around 10^-33 centimeters. If you could actually store positions using something of that size, you could theoretically store every possible chess position.
Of course string theory is just that. A theory. And even if it turns out to be true, actually harnessing something at that scale to store data would be a huge challenge. But perhaps there is something that size that someday we can harness. Or, more likely, some other technology that has yet to be discovered that our minds probably can't even grasp.
Today,Chess Players are losing to computers,
Generally Speaking
Many of us think that computers are many many times faster, more powerful and more capable when compared to our brains simply because they can perform calculations thousands of time faster, workout logical computations without error and store memory at incredible speeds with flawless accuracy.
But is the the computer really superior to the human brain in terms of ability , processing power and adaptability ?
We now give you the real comparison.
Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov was a pair of famous six-game Human-computer chess matches played between the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue and the World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov. The first match was played in February 1996 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Kasparov won the match 4–2, losing one game, drawing in two and winning three. A rematch, which has been called "the most spectacular chess event in history",[1] was played in 1997 – this time Deep Blue won 3½–2½.
Vidmir kramnik vs Deep Fritz
I am just asking all of you a question Can anyone ever gonna be beat
Houdini ?
SF?
Rybka
becasue they were made by humans???????