I have recently read a very interesting article which can be found here:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n11/ben-jackson/doomed-to-draw
In the 2018 world championship, Carlson had drawn 11 games against Arnand and he was ahead in the final 12th game when he surprisingly offered a draw. He then moved into the tiebreaker (with more rapid games) winning three in a row to retain his title.
Carlson probably did this as he knew he was stronger at rapid chess then Arnand.
But maybe Carlson is just getting a bit tired of classic chess where at his level human beings are playing like computers. Some of these high level games are just tedious and usually end in a draw anyway.
Even weak players like me feel their influence. But I prefer to stay where I am (1400s) and have the possibility that my opponent will not see my best laid plans straight away and that he might make a move that I can profit from.
In my opinion computers, -or should I say computer programmers have turned top level chess into a solid, tedious over prepared game.
@dixondo saidBut maybe Carlson is just getting a bit tired of classic chess where at his level human beings are playing like computers. Some of these high level games are just tedious and usually end in a draw anyway.
I have recently read a very interesting article which can be found here:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n11/ben-jackson/doomed-to-draw
In the 2018 world championship, Carlson had drawn 11 games against Arnand and he was ahead in the final 12th game when he surprisingly offered a draw. He then moved into the tiebreaker (with more rapid games) winning three in a row to retain hi ...[text shortened]... uld I say computer programmers have turned top level chess into a solid, tedious over prepared game.
Even weak players like me feel their influence. But I prefer to stay where I am (1400s) and have the possibility that my opponent will not see my best laid plans straight away and that he might make a move that I can profit from.
In my opinion computers, -or should I say computer programmers have turned top level chess into a solid, tedious over prepared game.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can stay in the 1400's if you want, but I've seen a lot of fireworks in tournament games at the 1600-1800 level as well, so you might want to (just as an experiment) bump your playing level up to that region, just to see what it's like.
Computers have played a roll in all this, no doubt, but as I stated in one of my earlier posts, it's also possible the top level players are simply reaching the limits of what the human mind is capable of in chess.
Oh well, there is still plenty to learn for mid level hacks like me. 🙂
------------------------------------------------------------------------------I take your point. But apart from the fact that one has to have the time and the inclination to improve one's game. The article I was referring to was not about the 1600 - 1800 level on this site. I am sure there are some very instructive and interesting games at this level. The article I was referring to Is a review of a book about Carlson and his play and about the professional game in general at this level which as you point out has just about got as far as human intelligence can take us.
You can stay in the 1400's if you want, but I've seen a lot of fireworks in tournament games at the 1600-1800 level as well, so you might want to (just as an experiment) bump your playing level up to that region, just to see what it's like.
Computers have played a roll in all this, no doubt, but as I stated in one ...[text shortened]... is capable of in chess.
Oh well, there is still plenty to learn for mid level hacks like me. 🙂
@dixondo
I'd like to think that human intelligence evolves (the human brain we use so little of) A.I./ Engines are only as good as humans who input to the program/platform.
@hells-caretaker saidErrr ... no they are not.
@dixondo
I'd like to think that human intelligence evolves (the human brain we use so little of) A.I./ Engines are only as good as humans who input to the program/platform.
They are better ... way better.
@wolfgang59 saidIn much the same way that a machine can be far stronger than the people that built it.
Errr ... no they are not.
They are better ... way better.
@hells-caretaker saidWho said 'they' were self aware?
Didn't know they are self aware! Bollocks...
Just disputing your claim that engines can be no better than their programmers.
It is the strength of Computers that they don't tire in doing tedious Tasks. So they avoid mistakes and ven by this feature alone they are better than humans.
The other Point is that they can calculate (and Access data for their calculation for any number of varaition. Human Players may not even make notes. That would improve their game significantly (I assume).
Within standard tournament time controls, humans can no longer beat the best programs. However, given more time, programs invariably hit a search-tree horizon and do not improve their play, whereas humans do not. Give Kasparov or Carlson correspondence time limits, and the score will be in favor of the human.
Everyone remembers that Kasparov lost a championship match against Big Blue. What few people know is that if you look at the total of games played between Garry and BB, Garry had an over-all plus score. Unfortunately for him, too many of the losses were bunched in one match, the matched he ultimately lost.
@moonbus saidI think it's the other way round regarding time limits.
Within standard tournament time controls, humans can no longer beat the best programs. However, given more time, programs invariably hit a search-tree horizon and do not improve their play, whereas humans do not. Give Kasparov or Carlson correspondence time limits, and the score will be in favor of the human.
Everyone remembers that Kasparov lost a championship match agai ...[text shortened]... rtunately for him, too many of the losses were bunched in one match, the matched he ultimately lost.
A human can play instinctively,a computer cannot.
I think how a computer works is it has to "try" every possible option and select one before it moves (unless it has access to a database which tells it to ignore some responses(eg if I move e4 it needs to "look at" a3 before rejecting it).
Set a time limit of say 10 seconds per move and the human should have an advantage because a computer can only "try" so many responses before having to move
@moonbus
OK, but wasn't in the contract, if he lost there wold be a rematch. I.B.M dismantled it to sit in cold storage? I get your point though...
@wolfgang59
Fair point wolf, just want to the bottom of this. Currently looking at 'Assisted Chess' by some GM's