The Match Has Begun: Will an American Finally Reclaim the World Chess Championship?

A computer can do arithmetic, and won't make mistakes. Does that mean your son/daughter shouldn't have to do their math homework?

Basic math is something many people use throughout the day and is pretty easy and quick to learn. Now if it took tens of thousands of hours to learn long division that could be better done by a smartphone, then I would probably be against learning it, yes.
 
what about Go? It was only recently that AI could beat the top Go players and that level of power is a long ways off for the retail customer.
I think it’s just the nature of the game and AI design. Theyve made crazy progress in a short time and already have pretty strong smartphone Go programs I’ve read (like Crazy Stones). They’re just going to continue improving. Board games are more or less done. It’s all downhill from here.
 
Basic math is something many people use throughout the day and is pretty easy and quick to learn. Now if it took tens of thousands of hours to learn long division that could be better done by a smartphone, then I would probably be against learning it, yes.
That's my issue with your logic. Chess was never useful as a skill unto itself. It wasn't useful before computers, either.

Furthermore, you're overlooking what makes the computers so good at chess. The reason programs like Droidfish have come so far has more to do with software than even hardware (despite that today's flagship phones are more powerful than Deep Blue). The programming is what separates them. It's people who understand and are good at chess that determine this difference in programming performance, and make the computers so strong.

I don't mind more realistic views of the world. It's not realistic to evaluate contemporary society through the lens of Gary Paulsen's Hatchet (or one of Jack London's books). Sensible planning means NOT planning for the apocalypse tomorrow, and so I would have a hesitate to recommend linguist/translator as a career to a kid who approached me in 2018, because I would assume the world's computers and internet will still be operational tomorrow if I want to maximize advice towards success and self-fulfillment. Tough sell pimping a career to someone where the better job he does the more obsolete he becomes, but I'm sure there's money in it.

At the same time, does that mean those people have been rendered obsolete by Google? Of course not. A computer without a master is a dumb hunk of metal. If you take too much for granted you become the man in Joe Rogan's famous joke sitting in the dark cursing the morons who can't turn the lights back on.

Being able to hold a smartphone does not make you an equal to the ones who build them.
 
I really want to learn to play Chess. I've always admired the skill of those who play it, but never had the chance to learn the game.

Sherbro, please take the time to learn and play. When you see those old-heads in the park going at it, you'll appreciate the subtlety.

"Chess is war."

I saw that on a bumper sticker when I was in Uganda back in the day. You may not speak the language, but the rules for chess are universal. :)
 
Furthermore, you're overlooking what makes the computers so good at chess. The reason programs like Droidfish have come so far has more to do with software than even hardware (despite that today's flagship phones are more powerful than Deep Blue). The programming is what separates them. It's people who understand and are good at chess that determine this difference in programming performance, and make the computers so strong.

We don't know what makes computers so good at games any more, they're teaching themselves.

DeepMind’s Go-playing AI doesn’t need human help to beat us anymore

“By not using human data — by not using human expertise in any fashion — we’ve actually removed the constraints of human knowledge,” said AlphaGo Zero’s lead programmer, David Silver, at a press conference. “It’s therefore able to create knowledge itself from first principles; from a blank slate [...] This enables it to be much more powerful than previous versions.”​
 
We don't know what makes computers so good at games any more, they're teaching themselves.

DeepMind’s Go-playing AI doesn’t need human help to beat us anymore

“By not using human data — by not using human expertise in any fashion — we’ve actually removed the constraints of human knowledge,” said AlphaGo Zero’s lead programmer, David Silver, at a press conference. “It’s therefore able to create knowledge itself from first principles; from a blank slate [...] This enables it to be much more powerful than previous versions.”​
it's gonna be hilarious when the AI that finally enslaves us all evolved out of an algorithim to play a boardgame.
 
it's gonna be hilarious when the AI that finally enslaves us all evolved out of an algorithim to play a boardgame.

It's hilarious that you think we haven't already been enslaved.

hqdefault.jpg
 
We don't know what makes computers so good at games any more, they're teaching themselves.

DeepMind’s Go-playing AI doesn’t need human help to beat us anymore

“By not using human data — by not using human expertise in any fashion — we’ve actually removed the constraints of human knowledge,” said AlphaGo Zero’s lead programmer, David Silver, at a press conference. “It’s therefore able to create knowledge itself from first principles; from a blank slate [...] This enables it to be much more powerful than previous versions.”​
Yes, I'm aware of DeepMind.

A human wrote that A.I.
 
Yet your posts seems to suggest that you think about it quite a lot, yet are too shy to quote/tag me to let me know just how moist it makes you.

<6>
You're a fraud who does more pathetic actions like make up shit about people.

Get your WR shit the hell outta here!

Bob Fisher still the GOAT.
 
You're a fraud who does more pathetic actions like make up shit about people.

Get your WR shit the hell outta here!

Bob Fisher still the GOAT.
No surprise that you can't spell his name.
 
Yes, I'm aware of DeepMind.

A human wrote that A.I.

Read what I quoted and then what I replied.

Knowledge of the game is no longer important in writing the program.
 
Sherbro, please take the time to learn and play. When you see those old-heads in the park going at it, you'll appreciate the subtlety.

"Chess is war."

I saw that on a bumper sticker when I was in Uganda back in the day. You may not speak the language, but the rules for chess are universal. :)

BJJ is sometimes compared to Chess because of the amount of strategy involved in Rolling.

Of course, as a no-stripe white belt, my strategy is limited to, "spaz out and hope the other guy is even worse than me":oops::)
 
Last edited:
BJJ is sometimes compared to Chess because of the amount of strategy involved in Rolling.

Of course, as a no-stripe white belt, my strategy is limited to, "spaz out and hope the other guy is even worse than me":oops::)

That's how I play chess...

<{CMPALM}>
 
Read what I quoted and then what I replied.

Knowledge of the game is no longer important in writing the program.
First, DeepMind is closed-source, so unlike Stockfish, for example, you don't know anything about how it is programmed beyond what Google engineers tell you. Second, of course it is. The computer needed to be told (in mathematical terms) what the King is; what the rules of the game are. If it was not told this then it wouldn't have any basis by which to teach itself how to be better. It first needed a human to explain what the game is in mathematical terms even if that guidance was as simple as a binary value: 1= win, 0= loss/draw

How Google chose to program that A.I. beyond those instructions is opaque to us, and what determines how it teaches itself to better understand the game on its own level. The chessmasters accelerated the sophistication of computer chess because they were able to teach the engineers/mathematicians concepts they would in turn write into the code so that the computer wasted less time on less efficient calculations. That's what separates chess software: efficiency of calculations, not volume of calculations. DeepMind is simply teaching itself how to refine its math more rapidly than the chessmasters could, but it still depended on a human to frame the game, and to frame how to more accurately predict outcomes based on accumulated data. That math itself may be predicated in part on past engines (developed with the help of chessmasters) you're blindly dismissing.

One of the most interesting observations about DeepMind has been that it often emulates classic chess strategy where all the other engines do not.

Yet, you overlooked the two main points of my post. The first point is that if you don't know how to write the program...then being able to operate the machine that does is not tantamount to understanding how to build the machine, or even how to execute the tasks the machine is capable of doing. The utility of the tasks is irrelevant to this truth, and that's why I made the second point, which was to highlight that chess never had any material utility as a skill, directly, outside of a chess match, so arguing that computers eclipsing us obviated the benefits of the hobby is to overlook the virtues of the hobby in the first place. It's a game. It was always a game. What use will a computer make of it?

We didn't dispense with understanding arithmetic just because the calculator was invented. The abacus was obviated, not the math or its human.
 
It's funny how the Google AI (AlphaZero) that taught itself how to play chess from first principles played like some reincarnation of Mikhail Tal vs Stockfish. It played extremely daring, crazy, unmachine-like chess, Stockfish like most chess engines plays like an inexorable boring machine. Dunno what are the fundamental differences when it comes to algorithms and all that but it was crazy to see an AI play like that.
 
Game 5 ends in a draw (surprise!). This was a better game. It ended in a draw but at least they were both showing new tactics. Carlsen has an extra pawn in the endgame but can't convert that into a win. It feels like Carlsen is the only one pushing for a win in these games, he's the only one trying to create chances. I wonder if Magnus pushes harder for a win tomorrow or if he's just fine sitting back and saying "You have to beat me, I don't have to do shit here". We didn't get a win last time until game 8 so I still have hope for a decisive win within the 12 games.
 
At this point I don’t see how Fabiano can outplay Magnus and he has to as Magnus has a strong advantage of it comes down to the tie breaker games.
 
Game 5 ends in a draw (surprise!). This was a better game. It ended in a draw but at least they were both showing new tactics. Carlsen has an extra pawn in the endgame but can't convert that into a win. It feels like Carlsen is the only one pushing for a win in these games, he's the only one trying to create chances. I wonder if Magnus pushes harder for a win tomorrow or if he's just fine sitting back and saying "You have to beat me, I don't have to do shit here". We didn't get a win last time until game 8 so I still have hope for a decisive win within the 12 games.
I got a little nervous for Magnus' king there, enjoyable game.
 
Back
Top