If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Houdini won game 48, making the final score Houdini 6, Stockfish 4, with 38 draws.
We are probably 5 to 10 years away from the top computer engines no longer being able to beat each other at long time controls. Every chess game between them will be "ideal" in the sense that no winning initiative can be gained.
With this kind of logic, you could have made the same prediction for humans long ago. Compare with World Championship 1984, final score:
Karpov 5, Kasparov 3, with 40 draws.
But as we know, humans can still beat each others in 2013. In my opinion, this kind of results with so many draws has nothing to do with chess being played almost perfectly or not. It happens only when the opponents are so well matched that they have to work really hard to beat each other.
Last edited by Louis Morin; Friday, 10th May, 2013, 11:36 AM.
With this kind of logic, you could have made the same prediction for humans long ago. Compare with World Championship 1984, final score:
Karpov 5, Kasparov 3, with 40 draws.
But as we know, humans can still beat each others in 2013.
Yes, of course they can. That's because humans don't have, and never will have, the same kind of year-by-year improvement in capabilities as we've been seeing for decades with computers. You have heard of Moore's Law, right?
The only thing that's doubling every 2 years in humans are fat cells! So no, I would not have made that same prediction for humans. Yes, they are still beating each other in 2013 because yes, they are still just as prone to oversights as they ever were.
As to the 1984 WC Match, let's review the facts: after just 9 games, Karpov had a 4-0 lead. Of the 5 draws to that point, one was in 21 moves and one was in 20 moves. Obviously not truly contested games, those two.
Then began the sequence of what on the face of it would seem an incredible sequence of draws interrupted by only 4 decisive games.
But look at this: game 10, drawn after just 15 moves. Game 12, drawn after 21 moves. Game 14, drawn after 16 moves. Game 17, drawn after 23 moves. Game 18, drawn after 25 moves. Game 20, drawn after just 19 moves. Game 22, drawn after 25 moves. Game 23, drawn after 22 moves. Game 24, drawn after 17 moves. Game 25, drawn after 22 moves. Game 26, drawn after 23 moves. Game 28, drawn after 25 moves. Game 29, drawn after only 13 moves. Game 30, drawn after 20 moves. Game 33 drawn after 20 moves. Game 34 also drawn after only 20 moves. Game 35, only 17 moves to the draw. Game 37, 15 moves to the draw. Game 38, drawn after 25 moves. Game 42, a 26-move draw. Game 43, a 21-move draw.
Do you really want to claim these were fighting draws? These games were not even contested. A draw was in the cards before the very first move of all these games. Each of these games might as well be erased from the record, except that they do show Kasparov's willingness to mentally drain Karpov and simply outlast him. In summary, this match and the 40 draws cannot be taken as any kind of evidence that humans had reached the same kind of point of chess near-perfection that Stockfish and Houdini have reached today.
In my opinion, this kind of results with so many draws has nothing to do with chess being played almost perfectly or not. It happens only when the opponents are so well matched that they have to work really hard to beat each other.
Or it happens when there are no tactics whatsoever to which either side can fall victim. That's the part you're not accounting for.
The fact that computer chess engines running on specialized hardware have not yet reached chess invincibility is testament to the great complexity of chess. But this complexity is not infinite. It still takes a mistake to lose at chess, and the engines are slowly, inexorably reaching the endgame of never making a mistake big enough to lose a game of chess. The finish line is near, and once it is reached, there will never again be these matches between the top engines. The result will be a foregone conclusion, always just a sequence of equal trades of pieces and pawns leading to a drawn ending.
The difference is that humans will occassionally deviate from "best play" and head into the uncharted waters of "most interesting play". Computer chess engines will not do that, and they are proving that "best play" is inevitably a dead, dull draw.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Paul,
As I see it computers will not change the human vs human chess game very much. Their advance will make our memory-book prep harder. But even if chess gets completely evaluated no human will remember beyond a few thousand variations. The best we have gotten is to remember some tens of thousands digits of pi. Look at checkers competions(checkers is completely evaluated).
Regards
Mario
But look at this: game 10, drawn after just 15 moves. Game 12, drawn after 21 moves. Game 14, drawn after 16 moves. Game 17, drawn after 23 moves. Game 18, drawn after 25 moves. Game 20, drawn after just 19 moves. Game 22, drawn after 25 moves. Game 23, drawn after 22 moves. Game 24, drawn after 17 moves. Game 25, drawn after 22 moves. Game 26, drawn after 23 moves. Game 28, drawn after 25 moves. Game 29, drawn after only 13 moves. Game 30, drawn after 20 moves. Game 33 drawn after 20 moves. Game 34 also drawn after only 20 moves. Game 35, only 17 moves to the draw. Game 37, 15 moves to the draw. Game 38, drawn after 25 moves. Game 42, a 26-move draw. Game 43, a 21-move draw.
Do you really want to claim these were fighting draws? These games were not even contested. A draw was in the cards before the very first move of all these games.
There are several ways to play chess. One can play sharp, or one can play solid. Karpov is always a solid player. And after losing 4-0, Kasparov realized that he had to play solid too if he did not want to go down quickly. So after a while both players played solid all the time, and this led to very drawish variations. Take the draw in 13 moves (game #29): after Blacks manages to play 13...c5 in the Meran, it is obviously a dead draw. Completely even and completely symmetrical. At this level, a complete waste of time to play on. But one cannot say this was not a contested game, unless of course it was pre-arranged and both players headed for this drawish position. However, I don't see any reason to believe this. It seems to me that Karpov as White played very solid as usual, Kasparov was unwilling to take any risks as Black (he had just lost game 27 and was trailing 0-5), after 13...c5 Karpov realized he could never win, so he took the draw.
Last edited by Louis Morin; Saturday, 11th May, 2013, 01:50 PM.
It sounds like a thematic event. The first several moves being mandatory to play. The ICCF has those kind of events for correspondence chess. They aren't rated for obvious reasons. I played in one and it's one game as white and one as black against 5 different opponents. They have several sections. First and maybe second place (I forget which) go on to a final round. The one I played was the Nimzo, as I recall. I wanted to sharpen my skills from the white side.
It's interesting that Stockfish beat the French Advanced from both sides. I'll have to remember that.
There are several ways to play chess. One can play sharp, or one can play solid. Karpov is always a solid player. And after losing 4-0, Kasparov realized that he had to play solid too if he did not want to go down quickly. So after a while both players played solid all the time, and this led to very drawish variations. Take the draw in 13 moves (game #29): after Blacks manages to play 13...c5 in the Meran, it is obviously a dead draw. Completely even and completely symmetrical. At this level, a complete waste of time to play on. But one cannot say this was not a contested game, unless of course it was pre-arranged and both players headed for this drawish position. However, I don't see any reason to believe this. It seems to me that Karpov as White played very solid as usual, Kasparov was unwilling to take any risks as Black (he had just lost game 27 and was trailing 0-5), after 13...c5 Karpov realized he could never win, so he took the draw.
This is all very interesting and we could debate forever whether the games were contested or not (which to my mind, means the players each did what a computer would do: make full, unmitigated effort on each ply to find the best move, and not just pick a move quickly because it leads to a dead drawn postition). My opinion is unswayed: the majority of those draws were not truly contested and that match cannot be taken as evidence that humans were approaching chess perfection.
But I am ok with a viewpoint that says 1984 was a watershed year in which it became apparent how strong humans had become and that the two highest-ranked players in the world (in this case only 10 rating points apart at the time of their match) would likely have a long match with many draws. That pattern has pretty much been repeated since. But again, this alone doesn't mean humans will soon not ever be able to beat each other in chess at all.
Unlike humans, the computer engines are improving still at exponential rates. Eventually -- and my prediction remains within 10 years, given that I don't believe these engines are yet exploiting CUDA and other GPU architectures to full capability, and those architectures are themselves still improving -- the best few engines will no longer make mistakes large enough to lose at chess. Nor will they make enough smaller mistakes to lose at chess.
The implications of this are mainly for those that want chess to be considered a sport. Computers will show that it is a puzzle which with perfect play leads to untold billions of drawn variations. You can argue that human vs. human chess is a sport because humans are imperfect and make mistakes. Kind of a sad argument, but the only one left for chess as it exists today.
It is easier to argue that poker is a sport, but that argument is hard too because of the preponderance of luck. A true sport needs a good balance of luck and skill.
One other implication is that human vs. human chess is now known to be nothing more than either an uncontested draw or a contested game in which mistake(s) decide the outcome. It is mostly the engines that are finding the mistakes, even live as the games are being played.
Tom O'Donnell had this comment elsewhere in this thread about a game from the recent WC Candidates:
"At the very least Aronian v Gelfand will go down as an amazing creative achievement: 26.Bh6+! and 30.g4! are a remarkable conception."
What he fails to mention is that 26.Bh6+ was set up by a blunder: 25...Rc8?. This is apparent right on the web site Tom links to, down in the commentary, it was summed up nicely this way:
FSR: <madlydeeply: Was Bh6 nice? I think more that Rc8 was a blunder> Yes, I think that is a more accurate characterization, especially at this level. If two 1800s had played this game, you'd say "26.Bh6+! was a nice shot." When you're talking about a game between two 2700+ players you say, "In a slightly worse endgame, Gelfand blundered with 25...Rc8??"
Houdini found 26.Bh6 easily, and so it's not like Aronian went beyond even what Houdini can do.
However, if you want an example that computer engines still haven't reached the Holy Grail of endless draws yet, here's a position in which even the top engines take at least an hour to find the best move:
r1b2rk1/1p3pp1/pqn1p2p/6N1/8/2Q2N2/PPP2PP1/2KR3R w - - 0 19
I won't spoil it for you by specifying the best move. When engines can find it in minutes rather than hours, the days of endless draws between engines should have arrived.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
....that match cannot be taken as evidence that humans were approaching chess perfection.
Paul, I don't believe anyone is even remotely suggesting that humans can achieve "chess perfection". You gone at length about how computers will continue to improve, whereas humans, not so much. I think we all agree.
Horses run faster than humans, dolphins swim faster, calculators do arithmetic faster, and computers beat humans at chess. So what? We still have human competition in all these fields, and that will continue regardless of how smart computers get. :)
Tom O'Donnell had this comment elsewhere in this thread about a game from the recent WC Candidates:
"At the very least Aronian v Gelfand will go down as an amazing creative achievement: 26.Bh6+! and 30.g4! are a remarkable conception."
What he fails to mention is that 26.Bh6+ was set up by a blunder: 25...Rc8?. This is apparent right on the web site Tom links to, down in the commentary, it was summed up nicely this way:
FSR: <madlydeeply: Was Bh6 nice? I think more that Rc8 was a blunder> Yes, I think that is a more accurate characterization, especially at this level. If two 1800s had played this game, you'd say "26.Bh6+! was a nice shot." When you're talking about a game between two 2700+ players you say, "In a slightly worse endgame, Gelfand blundered with 25...Rc8??"
Houdini found 26.Bh6 easily, and so it's not like Aronian went beyond even what Houdini can do.
26.Bh6+ was set up by 25.b4, a move that appeared to be "normal" but encouraged ...Rc8.
ALL wins are the result of someone erring. All wins in soccer, badminton and any sport are the result of someone doing something less than optimally. That Houdini would find the move doesn't lessen the creative achievement, nor does it detract from its cleverness. Your comment was that none of the games were full of drama. I gave a counter-example and now you complain that the game had mistakes. You seem to want perfect games with lots of sacrifices and thrilling tactical play. Good luck with that.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
26.Bh6+ was set up by 25.b4, a move that appeared to be "normal" but encouraged ...Rc8.
ALL wins are the result of someone erring. All wins in soccer, badminton and any sport are the result of someone doing something less than optimally. That Houdini would find the move doesn't lessen the creative achievement, nor does it detract from its cleverness. Your comment was that none of the games were full of drama. I gave a counter-example and now you complain that the game had mistakes. You seem to want perfect games with lots of sacrifices and thrilling tactical play. Good luck with that.
No, I don't want perfect games, in fact, I've been contrasting the almost perfect play of the computer engines with the drama of the WC Candidates, where much less perfect play made for more drama and entertainment. Remember, I said that every time I was watching the Houdini - Stockfish games, none of the commentary was on the chess. My point was that near-perfect chess leads to a near-total loss of interest.
I said the drama of the Candidates was more in the determination of the final winner. There wasn't much in the way of sacrifices and thrilling tactical play, probably because the elite GMs are playing more and more like computers. They are trying to play mistake-free. If you want to play through truly tactical chess games, you have to go mostly back to the era of players like Morphy, Blackburne, Pillsbury, Zukertort. Kasparov was maybe the last great tactician, but I understand there are a few out there right now who are trying to play creatively and ambitiously. I believe Nakamura is one of these, and I hope his drive to be #1 doesn't stifle that.
So you've got it all wrong, I would encourage more tactical play even if it means more mistakes get made.
To use a hockey analogy, I'd like to see a return to the "firewagon hockey" of the Canadiens ('70s) and the Gretzky-era Oilers. The hockey of today is unwatchable when one compares it to those great eras.
Regarding the Aronian - Gelfand game, if 25. b4 really did induce ...Rc8?, then I would call b4 somewhat of a brilliancy, but who are we to say it did that or was meant to do that? Maybe ...Rc8? was going to get played regardless. Only Gelfand knows for sure.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Paul, I don't believe anyone is even remotely suggesting that humans can achieve "chess perfection". You gone at length about how computers will continue to improve, whereas humans, not so much. I think we all agree.
The person I've been addressing all that to is Louis Morin, and that's because Louis Morin DID suggest what you think no one is suggesting. Louis Morin wrote that based on my logic about computers approaching perfection because of that match having 38 draws, one could have said that humans were approaching perfection in 1984. So I had to show him the error of his thinking, because humans aren't improving but computer engines are.
Horses run faster than humans, dolphins swim faster, calculators do arithmetic faster, and computers beat humans at chess. So what? We still have human competition in all these fields, and that will continue regardless of how smart computers get. :)
Ok... can you show me where I wrote that human competition in chess will not continue because of computer engines?
What I did write is that anyone arguing for chess as a sport will have a harder time once engines prove that best play leads to nothing but a gazillion different draws, and that day is less than 10 years away given current progress.
But then I did add that we could still argue for chess between humans being a sport if we emphasize the human element of making mistakes. Or we could add a luck element or two. :)
By the way, this has relevance to you as someone who is highly involved with kids playing chess. You can help chess overall by letting these kids know that it is ok -- not just ok, it's great -- to make mistakes at chess if the motivation is right. For example, playing an ambitious attacking move that leads to very tactical play: if the attack ends up falling slightly short, the kid that undertook that attack should be recognized and rewarded. Don't just reward winners. Reward some of the losers who show initiative and creativity. :)
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Regarding the Aronian - Gelfand game, if 25. b4 really did induce ...Rc8?, then I would call b4 somewhat of a brilliancy, but who are we to say it did that or was meant to do that? Maybe ...Rc8? was going to get played regardless. Only Gelfand knows for sure.
Well during the press conference after, to the best of my recollection, Aronian mentioned that he noticed that ...Rc8 was bad and that he wanted to play a move that encouraged it. He figured b4 was the move with the greatest chance of doing that. He mentioned something to the effect that he didn't want to make it too obvious and that's why he didn't play Rc3. Inducing opponents to make mistakes is a pretty good formula for winning chess games. It's possible that this was all self-serving propaganda by Aronian, but I rather doubt it.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Tweet
Comment