|
Chess discussion continues here |
On November 17 2013 23:22 sharkie wrote: rock paper scissors has nothing logical behind it, what is the use of that "computer"? lol I think it analyzes patterns. I went 33-38-29, in the beginning it seemed random, but in the end I got the gist of how to fool it!
Chess-related: Amazing play from Carlsen the last few days!
|
On November 18 2013 00:03 KalWarkov wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 23:22 sharkie wrote: rock paper scissors has nothing logical behind it, what is the use of that "computer"? lol ppl think alike. there is some certain things that repeat over and over again. for example, its more likely one will play rock AGAIN after a rock-rock tie, and if it ties again, its even more likely the rock will be played again. theroretically, it should still be 33%, but in this example, humans think "there is no way he is balled enough to play rock 3 times in a row". In my experience, ppl tend to play something else after the 3rd tie. again, this is just examples, but there are just certain behaviours that repeat, and the "computer" learned what these tend to be.
You actually think during rock paper scissors? Who does that o.O It's a game decided purely by chance lol.
Like Head or Tails
|
On November 17 2013 04:23 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 02:48 Serek wrote:On November 17 2013 01:33 kusto wrote: I have a serious question (no trolling) to all chess people here: How can you find passion in a game in which a computer is better than a human being? Why does this not prevent you from enjoying this, if it's demystified so easily?
I enjoy team games very much and tried to get into chess but motivation left me because i always knew that the most profitable moves can be calculated via computer. I really wish this was not the case. So you don't play games or sports because there'll be always someone better than you? Until chess is solved, and that is still some way off, human players will always be more creative than a computer. That alone is worth watching for. Like Carlsen, who plays 95% computer moves? The better you are at chess, the more you will play like a computer. That's not a bad thing, since computers don't play boring chess and they don't arrive at the move choice by the same method anyway. And yet Carlsen won game 6 by not playing the computer-calculated move. It's about being creative when it matters.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 18 2013 00:03 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 22:39 Wesso wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 17 2013 21:54 urboss wrote:Although engines can be of great help to understand the play of GMs, one needs to be careful not to watch the games purely based on engine evaluation. In game 6, this is how people with engines may have judged the game: "The game was drawn until the move 60. Ra4. If Anand hadn't blundered move 60, the game would have been drawn, what an idiot!" ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zjOdbOT.png) Can someone explain to me how b4 would become a draw? Me and a friend tried to figure it out but we suck at chess and failed to find it. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/un7jbU3.png) The best defense for White is to get the white rook to the 7. or 8. rank to give checks to the Black king from there. Mind that if the white rook plays back immediately with 60. Ra8, then the Black king doesn't need to protect the pawn on f4 anymore and can step into f2 which eventually wins because the g2 pawn falls. Anand's idea with 60. Ra4 is to keep the pawn on f4 under attack and to give checks to the king laterally. As was seen in the game, this fails because White's pawns will obstruct the white rook from giving checks. In the actual game, 62. c4 is not the best defense. Instead the rook should come back to the 8th rank to give checks. Let's see how Black can win after 60. Ra4 if White uses the best defense: After 60. Ra4 h3 61. gxh3 Rg6 62. Ra8 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HrIecMv.png) The rook comes back to give checks from behind. 62. ... f3 63. Re8+ Kf2 64. b4 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bjyzFtM.png) Now the black rook will invade and place itself on e1. 64. ... Rg2+ 65. Kh1 Rg1+ 66. Kh2 Re1 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lsGern9.png) Then the black king can sneak to f1 and the black pawn will promote. 67. Rf8 Ke2 68. Rd8+ Kf1
This is one way how Black can win. However, what happens if 60. b4 is played instead? 60. b4 h3 61. gxh3 Rg6 62. Rc8 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aZbxXGM.png) Again, the rook comes back to the last rank to give checks. The only difference now is that the b pawn is more advanced. 62. ... f3 63. Re8+ Kf2 64. b5 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fAPOFiK.png) Here, we try again the same operation as before, placing the rook on e1: Rg2+ 65. Kh1 Rg1+ 66. Kh2 Re1 In this case, the white rook can take on e1. 67. Rxe1 Kxe1 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WUyP3Dy.png) Both pawns will queen at the same time in the end. This is just one out of many possible lines. All the draws are based on the fact that White's b pawn is more advanced and that only checks from the 7th or 8th rank are working.
Thank you very much!
|
On November 17 2013 22:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 21:31 Grumbels wrote:On November 17 2013 21:05 GolemMadness wrote:On November 17 2013 20:39 Grumbels wrote:Solvability relates to Starcraft about as much as it relates to baseball. Theoretically there is an optimal way to play baseball based on simulating the universe. Except that this is completely nonsensical and irrelevant because many implicit assumptions you have made fail to be met: for instance that optimal play is the best way to play if you want to win. Use this approach for Starcraft and it might discover that one race is "stronger" than another race because it is theoretically always winning, except that this has nothing to do with real strength because humans (and computers too) have limitations and won't play Starcraft as if it's a turn-based game where they can use their database that has infinity more values than all the atoms in the universe. It's also completely irrelevant to building an AI (unlike chess where it is useful) These concepts just can't be used, it's honestly a scientific crime because in science you have to be very rigorous in defining not only concepts but also all the assumptions that need to be met before the concept can be applied to a problem. If you use them haphazardly it leads to ridiculous results like bringing up solvability of Starcraft. Also, try beating this by playing about a 100 rounds without any outside help: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/science/rock-paper-scissors.html?_r=0 Played 31 rounds, and am up 9-15-7. Wow. You should try to outsmart it, like with "I played x1..xn last n rounds so now the computer will expect me to play a but I will play b". I don't think you can win. :o Yes you can, you just have to change your patterns every x rounds (how much rounds you try to consider) i played 100 rounds and had 45-28-27 unfair, I lost horribly to it
I'm sure that computers are better at rps though. Humans can't be random in the long-term.
|
No it's not. You are playing against a human being who thinks and acts in certain patterns. People that are good at RPS have high win rates against a random opponent.
|
On November 18 2013 00:15 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 00:03 KalWarkov wrote:On November 17 2013 23:22 sharkie wrote: rock paper scissors has nothing logical behind it, what is the use of that "computer"? lol ppl think alike. there is some certain things that repeat over and over again. for example, its more likely one will play rock AGAIN after a rock-rock tie, and if it ties again, its even more likely the rock will be played again. theroretically, it should still be 33%, but in this example, humans think "there is no way he is balled enough to play rock 3 times in a row". In my experience, ppl tend to play something else after the 3rd tie. again, this is just examples, but there are just certain behaviours that repeat, and the "computer" learned what these tend to be. You actually think during rock paper scissors? Who does that o.O It's a game decided purely by chance lol. Like Head or Tails
This is only true if atleast one side is making the decisions purely through random chance, as though generating a random number in your head. However this is not what happens in a rock papers scissors game between humans, we are incapable of generating a random number in our heads. we base our choice atleast partly on the choices made in the past. If the computer in the game that was posted was using a random number generator it would be impossible to beat in the long run. However, the program is written to mimic human decision making, and that means it can be beaten, and it can beat you.
|
On November 18 2013 00:15 sharkie wrote: You actually think during rock paper scissors? Who does that o.O It's a game decided purely by chance lol.
Like Head or Tails
No it isn't. People think in certain patterns and you are playing vs a human opponent. If a robot was throwing one of the 3 randomly with 33.3% chance each and you had to guess which one, then it would be a game of pure chance. Since you are playing vs a thinking human, mind games come into play. Good players can have win rates vs a random opponent.
|
On November 18 2013 00:07 kyllinghest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 23:22 sharkie wrote: rock paper scissors has nothing logical behind it, what is the use of that "computer"? lol I think it analyzes patterns. I went 33-38-29, in the beginning it seemed random, but in the end I got the gist of how to fool it! Chess-related: Amazing play from Carlsen the last few days! I've finished with 31-28-41 score using pseudorandom (C++'s 'rand' function).
|
Guys, would you mind creating a rock-paper-scissors thread?
|
|
On November 18 2013 01:31 urboss wrote: Guys, would you mind creating a rock-paper-scissors thread? it's rest day
|
On November 18 2013 00:59 nFo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 00:15 sharkie wrote: You actually think during rock paper scissors? Who does that o.O It's a game decided purely by chance lol.
Like Head or Tails No it isn't. People think in certain patterns and you are playing vs a human opponent. If a robot was throwing one of the 3 randomly with 33.3% chance each and you had to guess which one, then it would be a game of pure chance. Since you are playing vs a thinking human, mind games come into play. Good players can have win rates vs a random opponent.
Oh, really? I always just watched there hands and threw out a second after i saw what they were about to make! Mind games! ;D and if its bo3 i ended it with a volcano. GG no re ;D
On topic: I didnt think Magnus would take TWO wins in this series, especially back to back. Thats huge... hes basically won unless he makes some huge blunders. The post game analysis is easier for me to watch, the VOD is six hours 0_0
|
so the only question remains... how many decades of Carlsen domination will we see? He already broke Kasparov's record of highest rating, now it's time to break his record of being #1 on the rating list.
|
On November 18 2013 04:15 mihajovics wrote: so the only question remains... how many decades of Carlsen domination will we see? He already broke Kasparov's record of highest rating, now it's time to break his record of being #1 on the rating list.
Every single generation breaks the rating record. There is inflation in the system.
|
On November 18 2013 05:29 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 04:15 mihajovics wrote: so the only question remains... how many decades of Carlsen domination will we see? He already broke Kasparov's record of highest rating, now it's time to break his record of being #1 on the rating list. Every single generation breaks the rating record. There is inflation in the system. A bit of a bold claim. Only three people have held that record over the last 40 years. Even if there's inflation, it's not like people are lining up for it.
|
Yeah that's not really a fair representation. Before Carlsen, noone got remotely close to Kasparov's record, which remains the most ridiculous rating (relative to other players) of all time.
|
On November 18 2013 05:29 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 04:15 mihajovics wrote: so the only question remains... how many decades of Carlsen domination will we see? He already broke Kasparov's record of highest rating, now it's time to break his record of being #1 on the rating list. Every single generation breaks the rating record. There is inflation in the system.
Carlsen is a very very rare talent.
|
On November 18 2013 05:29 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 04:15 mihajovics wrote: so the only question remains... how many decades of Carlsen domination will we see? He already broke Kasparov's record of highest rating, now it's time to break his record of being #1 on the rating list. Every single generation breaks the rating record. There is inflation in the system.
...
Are you serious.
|
I think there is probably more chess talent nowadays. And since Carlsen is somewhat dominant that's very impressive even compared to Kasparov and Fischer.
|
|
|
|