Thanks for the video. It's kind of interesting, how he matched up with the engine perfectly at times. What did you think about this?DoPo said:snip
Once again, thanks for the video, DoPo.
Viking Incognito said:I never thought it was possible to cheat at Chess. You learn something new everyday I suppose.
Use an analysis engine. It's damned good at tactics, but will fail you in the endgame (something that any Grand Master worth their rank already is damned good at). Due to digital notetaking, it's possible that a person could have it running in the background while he's playing the game and notating his moves.MegaManOfNumbers said:....
Hold on, how the hell do you cheat at chess? Unless your fucking psychic or robotic, that shouldn't even be possible.
Have you ever played chess against a computer and compared it to a person? You cannot simply think chess algorithms and beat a game that relies on tactics: advanced ones at that.Treblaine said:Yes, on the surface - to someone who has never really tried it - it may seem that way.electric method said:trying to apply math to how a GM approaches chess isn't quite a good idea.
Computer's way of thinking[footnote]Such a misnomer, think calculating if you really are picky. I just needed something to explain it better.[/footnote] =/= Human brain's way of thinking
Invalid, invalid comparison. Chess has been around for a couple thousand years (and has been refined quite a bit) while flight as we know it has been around 100 years. Also worth noting is that the Wright Brothers were the first known successful people to build a plane. Try again.But attaching giant fan to an oversized kite and riding the thing over the Kittyhawk dunes expecting the thing to fly equally "isn't quite a good idea", yet controlled flight was invented in America thinks to some Brothers trying precisely that. All aeroplane control systems descend from their solution to the flying problem.
And you know what, when they first did it EVERYONE thought they were frauds. They thought it was all faked, it was all a marketing stunt, and they said it was categorically impossible for them to succeed where other inventors with the funding of rich Industrialists and monarchies had repeatedly failed.
I don't want to be the modern equivalent of the person who called the Wright Brothers frauds, not over a matter of evidence, but refusal to recognise such lowly ones could achieve above that of the elites.
However he won, he deserves the respect and honour of all his victories till it is proven that he cheated.
There's no such thing as useless information. Everything has it's place, especially in books like those. The reason that they were 'worthless' as they gave too much information not relevant to them (Wright brothers). And just because information is worthless to you doesn't mean it's worthless for other people.Going back to the Wright Brother's achievement, there were entire libraries full of books on aerodynamics that the Wright Brothers consulted.
Turns out it was a whole load of writing but most of it was useless, all the complexities and theories weren't backed up and over-complicated the problem. Over complicated. If it takes 800 pages to summarise your opening strategy, then that is such a fiendishly convoluted strategy it's always going to favour the raw power of a machine.
Right then, he's cheating (if a guy makes moves that SOMEHOW manage to match up with a chess analysis engine and be the best recommended move, he's cheating) to think like a human?What if he's not trying to think like a machine, but think like a human.
What are you trying to imply here? I'm genuinely confused.
Computers do not think the same way as humans. Computers are quite dumb at assumptions, while the human brain is a master at assumptions. It's what makes developing software of any kind a nightmare; learning the programming languages may be easy, but telling the computer that you want X output is the difficult part.Remember, this guy designs chess-beating computer algorithms, he knows chess.
You seem to miss that a good part of chess is improving previous strategies to try something new. And ever heard of the phrase, "old is gold"? Sometimes the old stuff is the best as it has survived the times.I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Old elites all reading the same same 800-page books thinking in the same way have been made fools of before...