There is a part II to this video now available here : Part II of : Why Humans will have fewer and fewer chances against Chess Computers! This shows the even more dramatic position earlier in the game which was the exact position that caused the stunning move to be shown.
@thekkl
9 жыл бұрын
The horizon is still there, it's just too far away and moving too fast for any human to ever hope to see it again.
@Siderite
10 жыл бұрын
I am a software dev and I know how the computer engine for chess works. It is indeed brute force and can and will overcome any human at any time just by adding more memory and processing power. But that is not the point at all. As an amateur chess player I fell in love with traps and so I started thinking of a computer engine that would create the traps. It would have to use the brute force, of course, but also take into account the trappings (pardon the pun) of the human mind or the opponent, if you want to make it more general. That *can* be achieved with the same engine by following the sharp changes in evaluation between different depths, say by trying to compute the level of depth of the opponent then assuming sharp changes in evaluation after that level would trap, but it's not the same when you actually make the program, especially since a clear level evaluation of a human is impossible. So, while no one seems to be interested in changing the chess engine in order to appear more human or play to humans or create the most fantastic chess combinations shaming every and all grandmasters (and yes, I know it's partly a psychological block there, not wanting to implement human humiliation at the highest level), that is possible to do. We just have to move away from the bloody min-max algorithm or, at least, try to quantify and use "fun" as the value that has to be maximized. To end this obscenely long comment, I think we need to imagine a computer engine with a completely new design, intentionally rejecting minmax and instead trying to emulate the human way of thinking. This engine could then use a normal minmax as a helper, like a human using an engine would, but not as its basic design, if need be. But we don't watch the chess videos of GMs because they did the best calculation, but because they found the most elegant, most unexpected combination in order to defeat their opponent. It is not a superhuman obliterating a lesser creature by being completely and utterly correct.
@kingscrusher
10 жыл бұрын
I like the concept of an engine playing mode against humans where it deliberately allows a probability of a "refutation" move (say out of the 30 candidate moves) - but if the human doesn't play the refutation move, they would get blown away. Computers right now generally assume they are playing basically perfect chess against other computers who will play perfect chess. By allowing deliberately a "hole", it would be interesting to see the style of chess that would result! :)
@OKMX5
10 жыл бұрын
I´m currently coding my own engine so I can try that :)
@Siderite
10 жыл бұрын
I don't agree, Andreas. While you can say that any type of planning and/or experience can be considered part of the evaluation function, a human always has an overall plan. It's a narrative that he is constructing like "I'm going on the king side" or "going for a minority attack" or "I'm going to play like in the other game I played before". One might imagine algorithms considering different plans, and then other engine prioritizing any move that conforms to the best plan. Or having the entire human game database and taking the best moves that other people made when they won over people that moved like the opponent. And while I agree that "the best move" means min-max, the exhibited behavior would vary enormously based on what you are trying to maximize. Would these ideas be better in a head-to-head battle against a traditional chess engine? Maybe not. Probably not. But it would still be better if the average chess player would enjoy playing it more.
@kingscrusher
10 жыл бұрын
miserytake2 In studying the sacrificial games of Frank Marshall it seems a lot of his sacrifices might have some "holes" and so the engine would not choose them. But because his human opponents don't find the exact holes, they often get blown away after. So in a way, Frank Marshall is more optimised for beating inaccurate opponents than engines. However, i guess the engines would win anyway even more than Marshall through such accuracy without the need for anything risky.
@QuakePhil
10 жыл бұрын
There is an end goal of "solving" chess (as chinook did for checkers) but at this point it is academic. I have dabbled in coding basic negamax engines and such (in general, in order to learn a game I write a program to play it first) and one thing to note is that many moves are discarded to speed up the search If you were to literally search every move as you (mistakenly) think engines do via brute force, it would take you 80 years to search past depth 10, given a generous 10,000,000 nodes per second speed. So its not brute force. Its selective! Chess engines have developed an incredible array of "shortcuts" and "heuristics" as you correctly claim, and so it is a marvel that such a move like Rc6!! is found - not by conventional brute force - but by the results of decades and decades of game theory research. There's pawn structure, conspiracy numbers, attack/attacked/defend/defended matrix complexes, graph history interaction, null move reductions, double null move, and the list goes on and on of these techniques/tools that engines use. A request: Kingscrusher, I would like you, in your excellent style, to do a video researching these techniques, and to explain how it is NOT brute force, and most importantly, what we human players can learn from these very effective tricks that engines use.
@oddviews
8 жыл бұрын
Computer 1 White e4 Computer 2 Black resigns
@MrCooldude4172
7 жыл бұрын
Chris Crutchley if that happens it will be so sad
@KARTIKEYA007
5 жыл бұрын
I actually predicted Rc6 but only after u mentioned that it was a ridiculous move... I figured that if pawn takes took then with a passed pawn on the 6th it might be what the engine looked at.. I would never come up with it in a normal game but when u know that a stupid looking winning move exists it becomes a lot easier to come up with it
@Kabitu1
8 жыл бұрын
The d7 pawn is really a very significant defensive piece, so as such Rc6 makes a lot of sense, once you've gotten past the human aversion of sacrificing a rook. Reminds me of something Kasparov once said about a bishop sacrifice; "it's not a sacrifice, that pawn is as strong as my bishop, it's an exchange, I'm exchanging one attacking piece for one defensive".
@AlainHubert
9 жыл бұрын
A computer should also have been used to monitor and automatically adjust the audio recording level in this video, because the human responsible for it was clearly not up to the task, since we can often hear an annoyingly distorted sound from the narrator from audio level overloading.
@shinyam75
7 жыл бұрын
Skip to 5:55 to see the move suggested by the computer. It takes him forever to get to the point. Too much talking.
@TheDoomGuy333
7 жыл бұрын
I was looking for your comment, dear god I normally find some discussion interesting but holy fuck that was excessive!
@skydragon3857
7 жыл бұрын
totally disagreed, there are tons of chess moves for amusement but its the concepts hes talking about which are more- or at least equally interesting
@frankjaeger760
7 жыл бұрын
He was discussing one of his own games. Seems to be a bit more of a social one this video. And seeing as it was *his* game, why shouldn't he tell us about it and how it turned out?
@andream61
8 жыл бұрын
It's often a matter of psychology. As soon as I understood that white had a forcing plan, the idea Rc6/Re6 materialized immediately.
@kingscrusher
10 жыл бұрын
The original blitz video in question was this one: LIVE Blitz #2497 (Speed) Chess Game: Black vs IM Superstructure in Réti v Dutch #Chess #Engines #Computers
@TedSummers
10 жыл бұрын
You know it's bad when your phone {Komodo 8} see's it. tinypic.com/r/2lk65h4/8 Anyway, thanks for sharing. I enjoy your videos.
@carolcarlcarol4995
7 жыл бұрын
How exiting!!!!!! I predicted the moves until Queen D8!!! you made my day thanks for the video. its so funny how the mind works because if you had not said that there was 'something' about this... i really woudnt gave it much of a thought.
@7781kathy
9 жыл бұрын
5:43 That moment when you think "Rc6 because it looks like a move only geniuses would do"... and I just got it right... o_o
@yaosio
9 жыл бұрын
+Earl Vic Longakit It's really interesting because it appears to be baiting the other player, when all it did was determine it was the best move based on future moves. It would not matter if the other player didn't try to take the piece, but it made it easier.
@MurrayMelander
9 жыл бұрын
My Stockfish 6 found Rook to c6 in less than a second running on my i5 with 8G RAM.
@ace942
5 жыл бұрын
I can remember having an older version of Fritz play a mode where it would purposely make a move that would allow a player to have a chance to play a tactic if the player noticed it. There were three different level of tactics so some of the higher levels have more subtle moves. When it noticed that you did not see the tactic, it would say “you missed something” and then set up a lesson for you to review after you finished the game. Does Fritz assuming that it is still sold still has this mode? Could someone let me know?
@bhushandeo5938
8 жыл бұрын
Brain will never be able to play chess better than computer because nature has not made brain to play chess but to survive and computers are made to play chess not to survive.
@ChrisChoi123
7 жыл бұрын
Bhushan Deo very true
@Aleph1337
7 жыл бұрын
Also, humans have emotions, unlike computers.
@DaRza17
5 жыл бұрын
Very nice and so true.
@KARTIKEYA007
4 жыл бұрын
Give it time, computers will be able to survive much better than humans... The only edge humans have is their ability to innovate and imagine things
@imthebighorse
8 жыл бұрын
Komodo finds Rc6 immediately. Amazing stuff
@TheInterestingInformer
7 жыл бұрын
The top chess players probably will never win another game of chess against a computer again. They're just too good.
@Demonizer5134
9 жыл бұрын
My dream is to have a chess computer installed into my brain, and then go on to become world chess champion.
@Reivivus
7 жыл бұрын
last first, but our last savior of humanity, Magnus Carlsen will still beat you.
@musicjetstream2476
7 жыл бұрын
he said himself he 'always loses' when playing against engines. at least hes smarter than nakumura
@dannygjk
7 жыл бұрын
Reivivus lol Nope. So many people who don't bother to research think that Carlsen can beat the latest engine. Even 10 years ago the top engines could slaughter any human in a match. Yes of course it is still possible for a human to win a game against an engine but no human will win a match vs an engine.
@KARTIKEYA007
4 жыл бұрын
@@dannygjk it's not possible for a human to beat an engine, even in a game
@dannygjk
4 жыл бұрын
@@KARTIKEYA007 It is possible just extremely low probability.
@tryingtocorrect
9 жыл бұрын
There are still challenges: like how long one can play a game against a computer until computer takes the lead. Thats a good challenge even for average players. So if after 20 moves the score is still 0.0 then you achieved something, i think.
@EGarrett01
10 жыл бұрын
This isn't the position where Rc6 showed up in the original analysis. Why are you showing a different one? (apologies if you explained this at some point, both videos are 15 minutes long etc etc)
@jasondoe2596
10 жыл бұрын
That was very very nice, Tryfon. It really demonstrates the limits of human intuition (which I regard as the essence of our intelligence - the human brain is a wonderfully efficient, complex, distributed, parallelised and multi-layered pattern matching machine). Interesting how the "horizon effect" has long ceased to be a factor in human-against-machine chess, and yet we are very far from solving the game due to its vast complexity (although the solution is algorithmically simple!) Thanks for sharing!
@thomasproschinger3435
10 жыл бұрын
Awesome, thanks! Rc6 still blows my mind.
@newenglandsun4394
9 жыл бұрын
I've lasted longer against a computer playing the Englund Gambit than the Sicilian defense...wow...
@ace942
9 жыл бұрын
I think the same thing that people are discussing. Getting a computer to play better is not the issue anymore. The real trick is get a computer chess program that plays the same way that a human would. This would allow some one at a certain level of chess understanding would be essentially playing a person with the same level of understanding only it is the computer emulating a human as opposed to looking for the best move. Imagine someone playing at 900 or 1200 or 1500,etc can have the computer play them and the computer would play just like another player at that level so that the game is fair and not having a computer playing it at its strongest which would be discouraging for a lot of people. In the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", computers can beat any human player regardless of how strong a person can play. Instead HAL was programmed to mess up on purpose so that the humans could occasionally win and humans would retain interest in playing chess.
@MrShadowhachi
8 жыл бұрын
Well how about Rook A1->A3 or either of the rooks to E1? Im just an amateur but it seems to me that reacting to whites rock c3 is a mistake here. As soon as the rock c3 would take the bishop D3 the danger is over
@Youtube_Globetrotter
7 жыл бұрын
Mikhail Tal would have seen this move.
@tylerross9706
5 жыл бұрын
That is something I would expect tal to get.
@KARTIKEYA007
5 жыл бұрын
@@tylerross9706 I actually got the move but only after I already knew that a ridiculous move exists, rc6 was the only possibility as capture would create a passed pawn on the 6th
@k_ralph9391
7 жыл бұрын
It is like Kasparov took of his watch! If an engine makes a crazy move like this, you can be sure you already lost. It happens very often to me that the engine tells me the best move, and i think that has to be a developer joke!
@MrrrPiccckles
6 жыл бұрын
When white moved castle to E6 why didn't black move to castle to F6?
@briangerra5236
7 жыл бұрын
11:17 Whitenis a bishop up, but black has three pawns for it. Isn't that equal about?
@sul2soul
9 жыл бұрын
Can black hang on longer when attacked by the rook, instead of moving queen, just go ahead and sack the queen for the 2nd rook, would there be enough minor pieces for black to survive the onslaught afterwards ?
@cccpredarmy
9 жыл бұрын
a few years ago karpov said something that in my opinion should also be considered: "a chess computer is build by a human, thus in todays chess computers there are still "human flaws" programmed inside a system. the problem for a human lies not in the "impossibility" of beating a computer but in finding those flaws to understand the weaknesses of the program. it might take a lot of time and effort to analyze the huge amount of games needed to beat a computer but i have no doubts about that a computer IS beatable"
@ImmortalCreature
7 жыл бұрын
After kingscrusher said, that there is an amazing move, I saw that Rc6 can induce a weakness on e6, which can lead to the fork Re6 and I liked the move because of the open lines white gets. But in a normal game, where nobody tells you that there is a brilliant move, it is insanely hard to find these moves.
@keribubba
8 жыл бұрын
You do know that when a computer shows that it's looking like 18+ ply that it's not brute force? Brute force is the technique of looking at every possible variation. What happened is in the mid 2000s the engines got way better with the heuristics. They don't see that far with brute force, but with improved heuristics, and stuff like tactical extensions they filter their main lines much better. I forget the name of the program, I'm thinking Deep Fruit, or something like that, but there was a free program that had some major improvements and the other programs copied a lot of it's ideas. That is when the computers started to really dominate the best players. It sounded like you said 1980 was when the search horizon effect was no longer an issue, but I'm assuming you said 1990. There were still search horizon issues into the late 90s and early 2000s. There's actually still issues with that now, but it's much harder to expose it.
@shaun215
8 жыл бұрын
Excellent video, KC. As usual, very instructive and entertaining! Thank you
@diosdadoapias
8 жыл бұрын
Are the human players who uses computers to analyze chess problems and situations are actually synthesizing ideas or using the same computers to synthesize computer-produced solutions to arrive on a synthesis.
@mrlucasftw42
7 жыл бұрын
So I'm really curious - what happens when you have an engine play itself? Do you get a whole bunch of ties? Does white always win? It also gets interesting, because if it is just using a good min/max argument, wouldn't it always play the same 1st move as white (or react in the same way to a specific 1st move if it was black)? Afterall, if the algorithm is the same and the rules of chess haven't changed - whatever is percieved by the algorithm as 'best' will lead to a static result (unless some sort of RNG is thrown in at the beginning to make different early reactions to book positions.
@allthingsskate
7 жыл бұрын
gamewizl you should check out some of the notable games from the chess engine championships! they are so ridiculously complicated and the ideas are insane!
@davidb4563
10 жыл бұрын
After watching your Petrosian video, I came up with Rc6 almost immediately. Open lines for the bishops, potentially two connected (though currently immobile) passed pawns and strong attack seemed like sufficient compensation. Although I did not calculate all the variations, it was certainly a viable positional sacrifice that I think many humans would consider. I do, however agree with you main thesis and some of the quotes on the side were very interesting. Thanks for this video.
@EGarrett01
10 жыл бұрын
It's much, much easier to spot a "spectacular" move when you're told beforehand that there is one to be found. So to proclaim you saw Rc6 here means nothing. I don't even play chess and when someone says there's a brilliancy in a position, I can often predict it just by looking at the silliest looking moves.
@sk8aNinja
8 жыл бұрын
I find it really funny that I considered that move, then dismissed it as trash...
@billoy1979
7 жыл бұрын
Goodness, that white bruteforce move Rc6 reminds me of M. Tal and his style.
@RickFriedmanNYC
10 жыл бұрын
kingscrusher , I was the one on the original video who brought up 20. Bxg7. That was an earlier position than the one you show in this video. In the original, when you analyzed with your engine, it gave 20. Rc6 as best. That's when you were amazed. My Houdini 4 gives 20. Bxg7 in that position. The position in this video comes after your 23rd move...Bb7. After that, Houdini agrees that 24. Rc6 is best. The original question was concerning move 20.
@kingscrusher
10 жыл бұрын
Sorry yep - maybe I should do a part 2 soon with the earlier position Part II now available! : Part II of : Why Humans will have fewer and fewer chances against Chess Computers!
@ecspade
10 жыл бұрын
What a great video! Thanks for sharing!
@dave45032
7 жыл бұрын
11:11 Black Rook takes white bishop. Now he just has black square bishop. Better to weaken both sides than to let the game go on longer with him having both bishops.
@gabydewilde
7 жыл бұрын
If you know your opponent is strong you cant just take the rook. Even if you cant see why, you cant take it. It seems something like rook a8 to e8 to prevent bishop e5 would be ok? I initially thought the computer would play rook c7, if the bishop takes it e7 is not covered, trade rooks on f7 and take 2 pawns with the queen (for the rook) leaving a fork on the bishops and the black queen in that weird corner. Not as nice but interesting.
@ritsukasa
8 жыл бұрын
rc6 was my choice when you gave the 10 sec time. And its not brillant to play it, I mean you dont have to see all the outcome you just see its a fun move and potentially good and one can play it in a blitz. I would be schocked rc8 was the move. No surprise here. after black plays dxc6, white may even just then realize it has re6 xd so the first two moves arent hard and maybe is harder find the most optimal moves after that. Oh wait, Bd5 thratens a discovered check.. and h4 removes a defender, so a patzer could have win like this.
@phicomingatya
8 жыл бұрын
Rook C6 was the move I came up with after 5 minutes of evaluation. Because it was ridiculous enough but still somehow made some sense, with the two pawns and the pin of the bisshop. But I would never actually play such move.
@Basilisk4119
9 жыл бұрын
Adding hardware is helping computers play chess better but I haven't seen any evidence that suggests a brain cannot be strengthened quicker than a computer. I mean, if the goal was to specifically develop a brain so much so that it consistently eclipsed the abilities of computers (to play chess for example) would we necessarily fail? We don't know do we? There may indeed be a way of accomplishing this, as yet undiscovered.
@h3bb1
9 жыл бұрын
Could someone tell me what chess program this is that he is using to play out the games?
@kamran133
8 жыл бұрын
I cannot believe. Yeah as a first look it seems like a bad move but I don't know why, my intuition told me to do the same move as stockfish. I love attacking and sacrificing
@frankjaeger760
8 жыл бұрын
I would have offered a rook exchange at e8 then shift the queen to h3 for mate threat, if it was blitz....?
@SS18w4531g00
9 жыл бұрын
What is the whole point of playing against a cassette player?
@bajen3
8 жыл бұрын
Honestly....RC6,,,,,i see it directly already long before "if you i give you....can post the video" (ofcs when i also know it was an unspektive move on the card). Still, i think it was rather easy to see. You create 2 passe pawn....bishop diagonal supported, and the other rock down the line.
@KARTIKEYA007
4 жыл бұрын
Well you got that wrong, the idea is not to create two passed pawns
@sigmantvtwitch1474
9 жыл бұрын
GM's are able to find ways to sometimes make the engines go into 3-fold draws. If the engine creators program it to avoid this, I think the engines would score even stronger in the long run.
@GamertagTOWELLIE
10 жыл бұрын
Yay, I actually saw "the" move right away! I had to rewind the vid because I thought that you might have shown "the" move right at the beginning, but actually you did not. I didn't see all the follow-up play, but I had a good sense that that move was boss. Unfortunately, human intuition does not top cold computer analysis when it comes to crunching physical-world information.
@pfsloan8230
7 жыл бұрын
Insane. And yet, perfectly logical.
@Jate0000
9 жыл бұрын
Great video! does anybody know the date of Spassky's quote?
@albin8638
7 жыл бұрын
What if you run the engine and try to figure out the best move for black after c6 ?
@crazysea-mango2225
8 жыл бұрын
Yup, I found it. It creates a powerful passed pawn and a target. Rc6.
@frankjaeger760
8 жыл бұрын
(without first protecting bishop, pawn wouldn't take as you can then go straight to rook takes took at e1, I can't do every variation here)
@michael2305
8 жыл бұрын
I don't like to let a computer tell me what to do, if I need that as an advantage then someone might as well do the same and bottom line is we end up letting the computers play against each other and brag about wich one was calculating better that's not the purpose of a chess game to me ... i want to use my own imagination even tho it's tough to lose, it's still fun to play.
@oddviews
8 жыл бұрын
If one uses two identical computers to play each other, will it always end in a draw?
@chaslington
8 жыл бұрын
White has the slight advantage, so will win some of the games.
@chrissmith5564
8 жыл бұрын
Well, in blitz, the engine might not have come up with rook c6 immediately either.
@emusladino
10 жыл бұрын
What if Bishop B7 took Rook C6 first, wouldn't that work?
@aaronflatt6991
9 жыл бұрын
How is 12:09 hopeless?
@Fightclub1995
9 жыл бұрын
You should play BxC6 instead of taking with the pawn.
@herzwatithink9289
10 жыл бұрын
I have yet to find a backgammon programme that does not suffer *massive* -EV by dint of apparent inability (or "desire") to adapt play to its opponent. The whole thing brought into question the ratings system for me, because game theory (especially when it comes to the doubling cube) is such a huge part of the game. Let me be clear: in certain instances playing sub-optimally (especially when it comes to refusing redoubles) would certainly boost strong programmes' EV against weaker players, _especially_ significantly weaker ones. As such, a 2100 human might well be able to score better against a 1500 player (especially one relatively well schooled in doubling theory) than a 2200 engine over, say, 7 to 11-point matches. When it comes to software development, therefore, I suggest that the opportunities within backgammon might, at the present time, be as rich or richer than for chess. The challenge: how to create the "winningest" programme.
@president.z2566
8 жыл бұрын
only move i could think of was black bishop e5. white would win the exchange too
@Stokkeland23
9 жыл бұрын
I actually spotted this move myself pretty quickly. But the problem is that i don't spot the follow up moves. I just see instinctly that first Rook move for some reason. I am a pretty attacking player, think my style is abit like Tal. I just go for it and hope to solve it later on or hope my opponent fails at defending. The reason i spot this move is probably because i see almost immediately what i call "the initiative potential" in the move. Where i fail is seeing how this move ends up being winning in the end compared to a computer that spots this instantly. The human mind is simply limited at calculating variations at a rate a computer is. If a computer vs the world game would occur with a 1 year per move timescale i think the humans could draw or potentially even win. But not within "short" timespans. We simply calculate alot slower
@npip99
9 жыл бұрын
Stokkeland23 I highly doubt you ever considered that move. Even so, obviously chess champions can beat computers with handicaps. Take a pawn away and a Grandmaster can draw or win against Houdini. Given a year against a computer's 10 minutes of thinking time is still a major handicap. If you give a computer a year per move and a human a year per move, or rather having the computer calculate whenever the human is because the human most likely has a life, the computer will still win every single time against the top players. (Maybe a draw can be achieved, but I doubt consistently).
@jindrichzapletal5822
9 жыл бұрын
Nicholas Pipitone Rc6, Re6 is in fact not that hard to spot in a normal time control game even for me (2200). It is hard to calculate even basic variations beyond that and I would probably play it without much calculation just for the fun of it. The major strengths of a computer in a direct match with a human are a. no nerves b. infinite endurance under pressure c. perfect defense...they of course find attacking tactical shots of Rc6 type but so do strong humans
@robertreid2931
8 жыл бұрын
I just don't see how Rc6 is such an outlandish move that is beyond human comprehension or foresight. I've seen plenty of games in which a GM, not even a super GM would make such a move.
@mizofan
9 жыл бұрын
I could play the 4 greatest computers in the universe simultaneously and come out at least equal
@IIeWaveIIxBlackLight
9 жыл бұрын
So could I, I've seen the Derren Brown trick too :p haha
@mizofan
9 жыл бұрын
+SpudNug Bro Ha, I had quite a few insults when I said similar on another video. Only 4, you may wonder; well, either modesty or insufficient confidence.
@mizofan
8 жыл бұрын
By sabotage.
@Person-ef4xj
2 жыл бұрын
What happens if black doesn't take the rook?
@Urza26
10 жыл бұрын
Well, I came up with Rc6 immediately, but was only able to see some vague and unconvincing continuations. In a real game, even in a casual one, I wouldn't play it. It's sad really... I remembered as a kid loving chess when the chess teacher put up puzzles for the kids to look at in real life. Now, the analysis is almost all computer.. some of the nostalgic magic is gone.
@AoSCow
10 жыл бұрын
That's because you knew it was going to be an outrageous move, so you're only searching for the ridiculous ones.
@naphackDT
10 жыл бұрын
I saw the move immediately, then couldn't figure out, why it worked(it just looked like the kind of move, you could use to forcefully wrench open a position, didn't see the fork to follow it up)
@marlzipan
10 жыл бұрын
naphackDT maybe we have to make the move and follow our instinct haha
@kingcarisma
8 жыл бұрын
Could ex Tal have played Rc6....? Or is it alltogether impossible for a human such a move?
@crazysea-mango2225
8 жыл бұрын
No, I found it. But i had more hints, like "tactical resource." On my own, I would never have found it or if I did, I wouldn't really know the follow up.
@AxiomApe
8 жыл бұрын
At 6:50 I personally would have played Rook to F6 and see how the trades went.
@AxiomApe
8 жыл бұрын
and if there's a chance after, set up the second Rook to F8
@dottemar6597
7 жыл бұрын
Until there is a mate in x before move 1, which is practically incalculable, there is hope.
@Brandon-a-writer
6 жыл бұрын
why not rook f6 after the fork, protecting the bishop and if rxf6, retake with the pawn, if bishop takes, retake with queen? still pretty bad but seems like the threat.... nope turns out black is fucked. sorry
@tryingtocorrect
9 жыл бұрын
Lets also remember that there are huge amount of positions where humans very easily find the best move but the computers do not. So there is a long way to go that computers play perfectly, or maybe they never can. They play many/most positions much better than humans but not all.
@KARTIKEYA007
4 жыл бұрын
There really are no positions where humans will find the best move but computers will struggle unless it's specifically a puzzle position intentionally made to abuse the heuristics computers use... In a normal game there would NEVER be a position which a computer will struggle with and yet humans will effortlessly play the best moves in
@ergogray3143
9 жыл бұрын
I dread the day when you attempt to play a chess computer and it responds by just saying 'No.'
@ace942
9 жыл бұрын
+Ergo Gray Actually in the future it is worst. Computers begin to laugh when they see the moves that humans play.
@jsmith224455
10 жыл бұрын
What about Rook f6 to defend against the fork?
@PunkSage
8 жыл бұрын
I am at maximum 1400 player and have spotted first move within 30 seconds, how is that?
@sisirkantprusty5756
8 жыл бұрын
Konrad Szałwiński
@Ctrekt
7 жыл бұрын
Konrad Szałwiński then you guessed you got lucky or you have magically improved
@shaazkhan6885
6 жыл бұрын
Konrad Szałwiński u just know its a good move, but what u dont know is the move winning or not if black comes up with a good move then u will be helpless, but in the engine case it calculated every possible move that black can play and then only came up with that move to crush black because engine knows black cant do anything against that move but u dont.
@AnimeBeefRandoms
7 жыл бұрын
What if you don't take the rook?
@willmolinar
10 жыл бұрын
The lack of emotion from the computer is what will doom us.
@tricheh2323
5 жыл бұрын
trying to beat a chess engine is like trying to calculate better and faster than a calculator which is impossible
@ShotDownInFlames2
10 жыл бұрын
And it gets even weirder. In a few years computers will be driving our cars for us and flying our planes. Who made whom?
@JamesSpeiser
8 жыл бұрын
I would like to see the computer engine play both sides at the point of question
@Luther84695
9 жыл бұрын
behaviors of chess engine has diverged so far from human style that i find it useless. I only use it to check tactical mistakes and that's all. I don't buy newer programs as I see no point having an engine that performs 3000 as opposed to 3500. However, if software developers can make programs that emulate a human, I would be all over it. I don't care if the ratings are low. If an engine can very accurately emulate a human player with the stregnth of 1700+ USCF with human personalities, I would buy the program. I don't believe we currently have something like that in the market. That should be the direction of companies making chess engines in my opinion.
@TLEJT
9 жыл бұрын
+Joseph Studley Magnus app
@johncgibson4720
9 жыл бұрын
+Joseph Studley Let the computers play board games and burn their chips. Don't waste human brain on board games. Abolish human playing chess games. Let the game company programmers play each other to death. Let human discover the true nature of the physical world, not the cyber space. Make laws to prohibit another human from wasting time playing chess. The computer programmers that develop purely logical programs should live in their mom's basement forever. Let the computer programmer that probes the depth of the physical reality prosper. Yes, I am talking about Bill Gates and the likes that sucks off and live off the hardware physics advancement.
@johncgibson4720
7 жыл бұрын
+Stomedy , You are all going to end up like Bobby Fischer. Bye RIP.
@UCS_B_MrityunjayJha
6 жыл бұрын
it should have a OPTION To change lvl
@faisalrashid1704
9 жыл бұрын
Computers dont get tired..they dont make blunders..they defend properly and play correctly...chess is meant to be played between humans ...i feel sad because the fun of playing is over...imagine the times before these softwares were created when people used to play chess with friends with a cup of coffee by their side and they used to be surrounded by other friends who watched....beating a computer software of chess is similar like winning against playstation football....u win but nobody loses.....
@judetheman1562
9 жыл бұрын
Faisal Rashid Huh the only reason why we lose against computers is because computers have no emotion so they dont get nervous and start thinking off track like us. They are DESIGNED FOR CHESS their mindset is 100% on chess. So that means they will plan a strategy faster than us who are thinking about winning not making a strategy they also use logistics their logistics is better than ours because we are thinking about too much
@vanwan7610
9 жыл бұрын
You can still play your human friend do not fret😅 but I think playing against a strong chess engine is fun sometimes because it shows how bad you really are
@TheMarian30
9 жыл бұрын
Great video!
@krzysio767
7 жыл бұрын
I found Rc6 :D, or actually I managed to guess it because I didn't analyze much (although I would continue with Re6, a4 and dxc6 like in the video) but as an outrageous and possibly playable move that was my first thought. I wouldn't play it myself absolutely though, didn't believe in the move that much before seeing it played :). I've played in one school tournament and never trained etc., just play myself on the net and I'm almost for sure below 1700 with my game but I love crazy positions so I sometimes find such moves :).
@shaazkhan6885
6 жыл бұрын
krzysio767 u just know its a good move, but what u dont know is the move winning or not if black comes up with a good move then u will be helpless, but in the engine case it calculated every possible move that black can play and then only came up with that move to crush black because engine knows black cant do anything against that move but u dont.
@minipashki
6 жыл бұрын
what if you just ignore that rook?
@donakavite8286
8 жыл бұрын
I think humans still have a lot more in the bag than most people think. And the reason is because we are yet to fully understand the human brain, our genetics, and consciousness itself. Consider, although we're using 100% of our brain's capacity, it's really an inefficient use... like a Ferrari pulling 8000 rpm in first gear. We still have another five or six gears to access... And i see that happening as a result of scientific advancements in our understanding of ourselves.
@calebmon
8 жыл бұрын
yeah but it takes Humans MILLIONS OF YEARS to evolve, it only takes computers 6 months to a year how are biological organisms supposed to compete with that?!
@donakavite8286
8 жыл бұрын
calebmon It won't always take humans millions of years to evolve.. consider the idea of self-directed evolution or technologically assisted evolution. You are aware of transhumanism I'm sure. That's just one example of where humans are predicted to make massive progress. But the way we compete is by investing more into exploring human consciousness, brain, genetics, psychedelics, etc, and finding ways to turn on genes that can faciliate higher order intelligence.
@calebmon
8 жыл бұрын
Sebastian Carlo Yes But it seems to me that Humans will still never be able to evolve as fast as Machinery Even Cyborg Humans Would still be less efficient than just a plain old Robot because the Human side would still not be able to evolve as fast as the Tech would Because even If we make leaps and bounds in Biological Science we would still have to wait a generation or so for those advancements to be applied to the Next Generation as Modifying a Living organism's Genetics after Birth to such a degree is Science fiction at this point, Plus Bots are becoming better at everything already Why bother adapting Humans we are just another Failed Branch in the Evolutionary tree, just smart enough to understand how fragile we are, just dumb enough to potentially blow ourselves up.
@donakavite8286
8 жыл бұрын
calebmon It's a well known among biologists and geneticists that we're only accessing 1-2% of our dna to create our biology and intelligence as it is now... Some believed that the remaining 98% was junk. But recently indications have come to light which suggest that it's not junk, but untapped potential. For all we know, organic systems may be far superior to mechanical/roboti/digital systems.. we just haven't found out how to access it fully. I think we should just explore it first before we write it off. Who knows what we may find that we didn't expect or predict. I think we have a lot to look forward to :)
@reubenwalker9279
8 жыл бұрын
human emotional factor from life's distractions gets in the way
@vitakyo982
8 жыл бұрын
I tried my best against komodo , but it's unbeatable , i wonder if any human player can beat such programs
@dannygjk
7 жыл бұрын
Top engines will destroy any human in a match. Yes it is possible for a human to win a game but the top engines will win a match.
@ImmortalCreature
7 жыл бұрын
no top engine would have a chance against chuck norris.
@akison1980
10 жыл бұрын
Pretty soon even top grandmasters won't even be able to beat an engine on their smart phone. Perhaps we will move to the game GO to start beating computers again. Well, at least until quantum computers are a thing and GO is solved too /sigh. I am excited as we draw closer and closer to solving chess and reading the perfect game where we know for sure that white can always win / black can always draw from initial position. God I hope it's not London System.
@theinstigatorr
10 жыл бұрын
Stockfish on anyone's iPhone will crush any living chess player already
@ANSIcode
10 жыл бұрын
I think there's a huge difference between having engines far superior to any human player and actually solving the game. Those two events will likely be hundreds of years appart. But as Aaron pointed out, there are still plenty of games (like Go, Shogi, etc.) that will take even longer for engines to master. Also for training most people like being sure whether a certain move is good or not.
@mikecrapse5285
7 жыл бұрын
Aaron Kison that's funny that you make that comment as now there is a computer that can never be defeated in go by a human ever again. go is "solved"
@TaismoFanBoy
7 жыл бұрын
That's not what solved means.
@mikecrapse5285
7 жыл бұрын
that's why it's in quotation marks. Go, our last bastion of hope to defeat our coming overlords, has fallen at last to the computers. Never again to be beaten by a human.
@Daniel-wh1pu
8 жыл бұрын
Oh nice I thought c6 was a great move that I saw...thought bishop d4 was also fine
@krabbernegen
6 жыл бұрын
i"m sick and tired of playing against engines they're just unbeatable
@bennieblanks5129
5 жыл бұрын
Well, that's just depressing.
@shyamvijay8985
7 жыл бұрын
rc6 is quite thematic
@MyTomServo
10 жыл бұрын
My guess before it's shown... Re7! Fuck it!
@MyTomServo
10 жыл бұрын
Dammit! lol
@grandpahiggins
9 жыл бұрын
Garry kasparov bobby fisher and maybe petrosian could beat computers maybe
@tigerbait1016
9 жыл бұрын
grandpahiggins No, not today's engines.
@АтанасКостов-с2ч
6 жыл бұрын
Black be like: Oh yeah, I got this! And the computer is just like: Fuck you. Hahahah this made me laugh out of enjoyment! Truly a genius move! Well played Computer!
@Thundersage5
8 жыл бұрын
what about not taking c6??
@martisian
8 жыл бұрын
But then you cannot defend the b6 pawn.
@peterpetrov6522
7 жыл бұрын
Excellent analysis of the hopelessness of the human race, lol! Top chess engines now are rated at almost 3400. So, to them, the difference between me (2000) and someone like Danny Rensch (2400) is increasingly more insignificant which is just scary.
Пікірлер: 266