tuxiano

7 ms·

1.
by tuxiano 6y ago
My hypothesis is that learning chess is such a long path that people tend to forget how they were when they started and think their current level games are not interesting to share or stream. Pogchamps success demonstrates that a lot of peo
2.
by tuxiano 6y ago
The match you are referring to was played under tournament conditions that clearly handicapped the human Grandmaster. I read from the report of the match [0] that "The total time for the match was more than 10 hours [...] The two decis
3.
by tuxiano 6y ago
Chess engine ratings are not immediately comparable to human ratings as they are extracted from different pools. Hydra played relatively few games so its rating estimation was somewhat approximate but it was clearly "superhuman" (
4.
by tuxiano 6y ago
Sometimes if you play a move and the first plies (i.e. half moves) of the main variation the computer starts "understanding" and its score changes accordingly. Those are the cases where more hardware power could be useful and make
5.
by tuxiano 6y ago
There are a lot of engines with rating on the chart way higher than the best humans, so every suggestion on their part should be in theory enough to overcome any human opponent. In practice most (if not all) of the players rely on Stockfish
6.
by tuxiano 6y ago
I can't speak for Go but in Chess the best players in the world understand the nuances of a position still better than the computer engines and - if occasionally proven wrong by the computer analysis - are able to understand the refuta
7.
by tuxiano 6y ago
I don't know the last one but I recall the matches of Hydra chess machine [0] in the early 2000s against GM Adams in tournament condition (5½ to ½ for the machine) and against GM Nickel in correspondence condition (2 to 0 for the human
8.
by tuxiano 6y ago
Occasionally it is possible. After seven years and more than one hundred games played I can tell you that I have been surprised by my opponent's reply not more than an handful of times. For "surprised" I mean he didn't p
9.
by tuxiano 6y ago
You are right if by "better" you mean "competitively stronger at tournament or rapid conditions". Humans are still way stronger strategically and competitively if given enough time and resources to avoid tactical mistake
10.
by tuxiano 6y ago
In official correspondence games the computer assistance is allowed so most (if not all) of the players usually start their analysis with the computer suggestions (Stockfish, Lc0 or others). Some players limit themselves to this and play th
11.
by tuxiano 6y ago
The rating you are referring to are typically based on tournament or rapid games, where the limited time induces the human players to mistakes that the computer capitalizes on. Given enough time or with a “blunder check” option, the best hu
12.
by tuxiano 6y ago
I strongly disagree. The best correspondence chess players often improve over the computer suggestions. It takes time, energy and a great strategic knowledge, but it’s still possibile. Source: I’m a correspondence chess international master
13.
by tuxiano 6y ago
I suppose he can’t because it isn’t true at all. The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. Source: I’m a corrspondence chess international master
14.
by tuxiano 19y ago
python in this world, lisp in paradise