look at this list :
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/
Rybka 2.1 which has the highest rating is rated 3100 elo
When I first saw this rating I couldn't believe it.
It is incredible that a chess engine overcomes 3000 elo
At last chess engines have become better than the best chess players
Could Kasparov beat it ? Don't think so
Two points -
Elo rating is a relative, not absolute, scale, these ratings look about 100-200 pts higher than comparable humans on the FIDE rating list
This rating was achieved in exclusively computer v computer games, a human grandmaster playing postional, closed openings would expect to nullify any programme's undoubted advantage in tactical accuracy, and steer the game into postions where his knowledge of strategy was at a premium
a Rybka v Kasparov match would be very interesting, but probably very tight, not an easy vistory for the computer that a 300 odd points difference would imply
Originally posted by Siskin"The main developer of the program - international master Vasik Rajlich (Hungary) has inserted the algorithms of positional estimation into it which are as close to the chess-player’s style of thinking as possible. Excellent evaluation of the dynamic factors combined with subtle definition of the positional nuances (positional victim of the quality is the house method of the program!) allows it to achieve the outstanding results in playing and the quality of analysis! "
Two points -
Elo rating is a relative, not absolute, scale, these ratings look about 100-200 pts higher than comparable humans on the FIDE rating list
This rating was achieved in exclusively computer v computer games, a human grandmaster playing postional, closed openings would expect to nullify any programme's undoubted advantage in tactical accuracy, ...[text shortened]... y very tight, not an easy vistory for the computer that a 300 odd points difference would imply
I tend to agree, but I don't see (and never have seen) the problem.
What does it matter if computers become better at chess than humans? We don't play chess to be better than computers, and at the level at which it becomes significant (computer analysis aiding GM preparation), it's irrelevant to most of us.
The miracle is that it has taken this long. Rybka is the product of human design; that, too, is an achievement for humanity.
Originally posted by HFRorbisso if people make the engines then the engines cant be any better than the player themselves. the engines will never be better than humans.
"The main developer of the program - international master Vasik Rajlich (Hungary) has inserted the algorithms of positional estimation into it which are as close to the chess-player’s style of thinking as possible. Excellent evaluation of the dynamic factors combined with subtle definition of the positional nuances (positional victim of the quality is the h ...[text shortened]... ogram!) allows it to achieve the outstanding results in playing and the quality of analysis! "
Originally posted by HFRorbisRubish. The only algorithm I see that can go through is the one authored and published by Botvinnik in his book "Computers, Chess and Long Range Planning". He (his collaborators) failed to implement it on computer's code.
"The main developer of the program - international master Vasik Rajlich (Hungary) has inserted the algorithms of positional estimation into it which are as close to the chess-player’s style of thinking as possible. Excellent evaluation of the dynamic factors combined with subtle definition of the positional nuances (positional victim of the quality is the h ...[text shortened]... ogram!) allows it to achieve the outstanding results in playing and the quality of analysis! "
Now, after 50 years or so, there is a new commercial attempt to bring it to life. It is called SmarThink 1.0. You can find some info (and buy it) at lokasoft.com.
But don't waste your time (neither your money) on it. It is pure crap.
May be in the future they'd get an excellent piece of code, but for the time being, it is less than nothing.
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingYou tell em Girl!
Rubish. The only algorithm I see that can go through is the one authored and published by Botvinnik in his book "Computers, Chess and Long Range Planning". He (his collaborators) failed to implement it on computer's code.
Now, after 50 years or so, there is a new commercial attempt to bring it to life. It is called SmarThink 1.0. You can find some info ...[text shortened]... ure they'd get an excellent piece of code, but for the time being, it is less than nothing.
Nice to see your back and at it 🙂
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomPeople get computers to do lots of things better than humans.
so if people make the engines then the engines cant be any better than the player themselves. the engines will never be better than humans.
I have never been able to calculate the orbit of Pluto as quickly as a computer. I get bored checking the spelling and grammer in that 50000 word novel long before a computer gives up and make more mistakes but have you ever found a computer than can play chess, calculate the orbit of Pluto and spell check that novel?
Computers are better at doing many things better than us but for vesatility humans currently still win hands down.
Originally posted by Dragon FireMy computer can do all of those things.
People get computers to do lots of things better than humans.
I have never been able to calculate the orbit of Pluto as quickly as a computer. I get bored checking the spelling and grammer in that 50000 word novel long before a computer gives up and make more mistakes but have you ever found a computer than can play chess, calculate the orbit of Pluto ...[text shortened]... er at doing many things better than us but for vesatility humans currently still win hands down.