EPTWorld Chess Championship 2013 - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Chess discussion continues here | ||
|
GolemMadness
Canada11044 Posts
| ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
| ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On November 06 2013 02:04 sharkie wrote: Oh wow, so chess has been mostly figured out... Kinda sad  I guess the limited moves the pieces can make is a reason for that? Doesn't this make analysing during the matches kinda stall if everyone knows it was a huge blunder.. Engines aren't close to figuring chess out. Like someone else said, they would be pretty lost in the opening without opening books. Plus, even though they're now better than humans in basically every type of position outside the opening, their analysis is far from perfect. They can spot tactical blunders instantly, but quite often, they misevaluate complex positions unless you give them a good time to run. And even then, different engines evaluate the position differently and you can never be sure how accurate the evaluations are. This is where human analysis comes in. Computers don't understand chess. Kasparov famously compared their intelligence to toasters once. The only reason they're so strong is because the amount of positions they can evaluate is several magnitudes higher than what humans can do. Sure, you can follow a game with your computer and it will give you a good idea of when players are making mistakes, but you have no idea why these moves are mistakes unless you're already a strong chess player. All the computer gives you is a bunch of different lines. Instead of lamenting over computer strength, I think we should consider it a marvel that humans are still so close. In raw computational power, humans are so utterly outmatched that we shouldn't be able to get anywhere close to computers in playing strength. But we do, because we understand chess on a more abstract level than computers. We can intuitively discard the vast majority of moves in a position (the computer has to look at all) and we understand positional concepts that let us play moves without the need to always calculate deeply. In fact, we have such a good understanding of chess that we managed to teach some of it to our computers. All the algorithms the computer uses to evaluate a position are based on human understanding of chess. Without them, all the computational power in the world wouldn't allow a computer to play chess. These days, live analysts usually turn off their computer analysis during the broadcast. As nice as it is to know what the computer thinks, it doesn't help help a human to understand a game of chess and it takes away all the fun of calculating yourself. When you watch these matches, just forget there's a computer evaluation lurking somewhere. The players don't have access to the evaluations and you'd just be cheating yourself out of the marvel of trying to follow what the players are doing with nothing to rely on but your own brain. | ||
stuchiu
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On November 06 2013 09:06 biology]major wrote: awesome blitz match from vishy, back in the day This is hilarious! | ||
|
Taekwon
United States8155 Posts
On November 06 2013 09:57 GolemMadness wrote: Yeah, the commentary is pretty atrocious in that video. Commentating chess is quite a bit harder than commentating Starcraft, though. Haha, they're both grandmasters believe it or not. ...quite different for sc | ||
|
Demand2k
Norway875 Posts
| ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
| ||
|
Djagulingu
Germany3605 Posts
Please. Let Andres Cantor cast this. | ||
|
seom
South Africa491 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On November 06 2013 17:34 evilfatsh1t wrote: im not familiar with professional chess rules, so can someone explain to me the 120mins thing? i hope to god that does not mean 120mins allowed for each player to make 1 move for the first 40 moves. that is just ridiculous EDITED: Each player has 120 minutes total to make his first 40 moves. Then each player has 60 minutes for the next 20 moves. After that each player has 15 minutes (+30 seconds increment per move) for the rest of the game. However, on average, most games end before 40 moves are played. Also, mind that the first 10-15 moves will be played very fast since players come in with prepared openings. | ||
|
BeaSteR
Sweden328 Posts
On November 06 2013 17:07 Djagulingu wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O06Zp3gCT3c Please. Let Andres Cantor cast this. ROFL best ad ever :D Ye let Cantor do it, hilarious | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On November 06 2013 17:34 evilfatsh1t wrote: im not familiar with professional chess rules, so can someone explain to me the 120mins thing? i hope to god that does not mean 120mins allowed for each player to make 1 move for the first 40 moves. that is just ridiculous You have 120 minutes total to make your first 40 moves. 3 minutes per move on average. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5021 Posts
Can't wait, hope I remember to catch some of it! | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On November 06 2013 16:50 Mafe wrote: I hope computers still need some years to be fast enough to solve chess. Well even then the better prepared player should win, as of course noone can remember all possible lines. Just to reiterate since this seems to be a common misconception: computers are nowhere near solving chess. The algorithms computers use to play chess today are very different from what would be required to attempt to solve chess. A modern chess computer calculates ahead to a certain depth (dependant on your settings and how long you let it run), evaluates the positions he reaches based on algorithms devised by humans and returns an evaluation of the current situation assuming what the computer considers to be best play. It's a subjective and incomplete method, dependant both on the algorithms the computer uses to assess positions and the depth to which it calculates. A computer evaluation is imperfect, it's an estimation that happens to be mostly better than human estimations because of how much more the computer can calculate. Solving the game meanwhile would mean running through all possible chess positions with something like a minimax algorithm. The two methods are completely separate, computers increasing in playing strength has little to do with them getting closer to solving the game. From Wikipedia: The prospects of completely solving chess are generally considered to be rather remote. It is widely conjectured that there is no computationally inexpensive method to solve chess even in the very weak sense of determining with certainty the value of the initial position, and hence the idea of solving chess in the stronger sense of obtaining a practically usable description of a strategy for perfect play for either side seems unrealistic today. However, it has not been proven that no computationally cheap way of determining the best move in a chess position exists, nor even that a traditional alpha-beta-searcher running on present-day computing hardware could not solve the initial position in an acceptable amount of time. The difficulty in proving the latter lies in the fact that, while the number of board positions that could happen in the course of a chess game is huge (on the order of 1040[26]), it is hard to rule out with mathematical certainty the possibility that the initial position allows either side to force a mate or a threefold repetition after relatively few moves, in which case the search tree might encompass only a very small subset of the set of possible positions. It has been mathematically proven that generalized chess (chess played with an arbitrarily large number of pieces on an arbitrarily large chessboard) is EXPTIME-complete,[27] meaning that determining the winning side in an arbitrary position of generalized chess provably takes exponential time in the worst case; however, this theoretical result gives no lower bound on the amount of work required to solve ordinary 8x8 chess. | ||
|
broodbucket
Australia963 Posts
I feel like it's gonna be an amazing story no matter who wins. Anand wins: lower ranked, older player showing that you need something truly special to be World Champion Carlsen wins: uncontested greatest player ever | ||
|
GolemMadness
Canada11044 Posts
On November 06 2013 18:30 broodbucket wrote: Hyped as fuck. I feel like it's gonna be an amazing story no matter who wins. Anand wins: lower ranked, older player showing that you need something truly special to be World Champion Carlsen wins: uncontested greatest player ever Uncontested greatest player ever? What? | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On November 06 2013 17:59 urboss wrote: Each player has 120 minutes total to make his first 40 moves. After 40 moves are played, the clock is reset for both players. Then each player has 60 minutes for the next 20 moves. After that the clock is reset again and each player has 15 minutes (+30 seconds increment per move) for the rest of the game. However, on average, most games end before 40 moves are played. Also, mind that the first 10-15 moves will be played very fast since players come in with prepared openings. To clarify, the clock is never reset, unless this is some bizarre time control that I'm unaware of. It's 120 minutes for your first 40 moves, then 60 minutes added for the next 20, then 15 minutes added plus the increment. You get to keep all of the time you saved throughought the game. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On November 06 2013 17:07 Djagulingu wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O06Zp3gCT3c Please. Let Andres Cantor cast this. hahaha, either him or the korean broodwar commentators ^^ | ||
| ||
