24

My short answer: no, computers are not destroying chess. And now here comes a really long version ... Your first question: It is true the engines have level up the game, but can we also conclude that engines at a certain level are destroying the human cognitive process of figuring out moves by themselves over the board (mainly at opening phase)? As ...


15

Deep Blue was a super computer. In the 2006 match, Kramnik was defeated by Deep Fritz that everybody could buy. In a November 2006 match between Deep Fritz and world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik, the program ran on a computer system containing a dual-core Intel Xeon 5160 CPU, capable of evaluating only 8 million positions per second, but ...


12

Bobby Fischer: Radio Interview, June 27 1999 I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, it really is dead. A lot of people come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10x8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things....


12

I see three situations, where something like you describe could happen: wild tactical positions with open king, where moves have to be very precise and many humans might be too scared to enter such position Many composed studies feature surprising moves that could be rejected by humans. For instance studies in which you give up all your material except for ...


11

In some ways, computers have been taking the "fun" out of chess, in the sense of creating an arms race of opening preparation in fashionable opening lines. However, if you look at any current games in top-level play, you will still constantly see fresh new positions, and even opening play that would once have been considered completely bizarre just twenty ...


8

There actually is an ambitiously worked out answer out there: http://web.ist.utl.pt/diogo.ferreira/papers/ferreira13impact.pdf On page 77 you get the relevant table: depth: elo: 20 2894 19 2828 18 2761 17 2695 16 2629 15 2563 … So my comment was slightly off, depth 20 is already very strong. Still the point remains, that it is ...


8

A standard desktop today is significantly more powerful than whatever machine Deep Blue was running on in the mid-1990s against Kasparov. Since Deep Blue was the first engine to beat a world champion, that's the answer to your question. Note that there may have been an engine before Deep Blue that, if it ran on a modern day desktop, could have beat ...


7

Yes. A grandmaster or a team of grandmasters can hold a draw or win against an engine when given time odds. I think that there is a minimum time control at which an engine can perform equally good or better than a grandmaster (without time odds). I guess this number is somewhere around 2 or 3 minutes for the whole game. Let's say for simplicity that it is ...


7

The best computers are much better than the best humans, and if I had to make up numbers I'd guess that they're improving at least ten times as fast as humans are (it's a wild approximation but, more or less, humans are improving by around 2 Elo points a year and computers are improving by around 20 points a year). There's no way humans will catch up.


7

This article from Chessbase answers most of your questions. This was the position in which Kasparov had set a "computer chess" trap. [fen "r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"] [White "Deep Blue"] [Black "Gary Kasparov"] He was expecting 36. Qb6 Rd8 37. ab Rab8 38. Qxa6 e4 [fen "1r1rq1k1/6p1/Q2b1p1p/1P1P1P2/1Pp1p3/2P4P/...


6

I guess you have to ask IBM, but it's probably not for sale. Right now the custom made computer is on display at the Computer History Museum.


6

Firstly, I think it is fallacious to consider chess a measure of intelligence (even though that is the general view). Chess ability, like almost any other skill-based activity, is a function of hard work and dedication far above raw talent. Wikipedia has an entry on this topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Chess_and_intelligence) - researchers have ...


6

You have to understand, that a top ten player is superior to an engine in the opening, because he used engines to analyze openings for many years, and because engines usually don't have an opening book on the level of the preparation of a top player. In chess 960 you basically take away the opening book for both players and at the very top this actually ...


5

Computers (engines) have changed chess on the professional level. There is no doubt about that. In some ways, it was inevitable that chess engines would become unbeatable machines. Personally, I sometimes wish they didn't exist. But change is here and one has to adapt! When it comes to professional play, everyone has an engine at home, ready to help during ...


5

From the seventies to the nineties, there was a development in chess, that more and more, a chess professional was someone, who tried to outprepare his opponent or make a draw if this didn't work out. Or in many cases, try to outprepare weaker opponents and make a draw right away with his stronger opponents. This is one of the reasons, why Karpov and ...


5

Yes, it's possible. See this article. The gist is, if for you're in a "draw and I win this tournament" situation, you would quite naturally play moves that might not be the best, but keeps the position simple and avoids tactical melees. You'd do this even if it reduces your chances to win the game. Conversely, if you're in a must-win situation, then you'll ...


4

Your question is stated in such a way, that the answer Yes is almost certain. And I will explain why. First of all, from mathematical (game theory) point of view, chess is an extensive-form game, which means that it has a Nash equilibrium. Taken these hard words away, this means that from a theoretical point of view, with a perfect game if a game is not a ...


4

A new answer like this to a four-year-old question is probably doomed to lie, unread, at the bottom of the answer column, yet four years late I have something different to add, so here goes. That computers have not killed the game is one of the great surprises in the history of chess. Computers have perhaps damaged the game. Not a few masters have ...


4

For early versions, the lczero project's download page refers you to the lc0 releases available on GitHub. For versions from 2018, you can go the lczero repository on GitHub. Note that while the downloads from from the former repository (lc0) provide both Windows builds and source code, the older releases from 2018 (lczero) give you only source code that you ...


3

The machine, hands down. These days the machine is so incomparably stronger than a player, that even if a player comes up with a better long-term strategy, they will still lose to inevitably missing tactics. Even if they don't outright drop material, they will overlook threats and walk into a situation where they need to concede positional advantage to ...


3

Most (all?) modern chess computers are software programs which can be run from anyone's computer. Back in the bad old days of 1999, though, IBM couldn't get what they wanted from some random laptop. They made Deep Blue using custom hardware which made mass production economically impossible. So no, you cannot buy it because they were never made for sale.


3

Six months ago a match was held on ICC: Komodo, one of the strongest engine, faced hundreds of people combined. Komodo won. http://www.chessclub.com/article/icc-vs.-komodo-online-voting-match


3

Chess is the only game where Computers can show the best performance . I mean they play the real moves . From a learning perspective I believe Computers are not a good tool for strategic perspective . They are good for analysis for the Players who are above the 2000 + Elo level . Computers find the moves mainly based on Calculation abilities and are ...


3

Nope Time odds are irrelevant on the computational side. Computation of chess positions is easily parallelized, meaning additional computational resources can be brought to bear independently of time constraints. The linear component of the processing will be trivially small compared to the time controls.


3

Yes, at some ratio. But that ratio changes every day, in favor of the computer. Grandmasters are getting very slightly better over the years, while computers double in speed every few years. Maybe a GM could win with 100:1 time odds today, but they would need 1000:1 soon, and 10000:1 soon thereafter.


3

My view is the following When a computer program can do something that a human can, it is the success of the people who built it, not a flaw in human abilities. To automate a manual or semi-automatic process happens all the time. Fortunately, chess isn't an industrial process or part of a product line. It is a battle of minds that millions of people ...


3

Generally speaking, humans have already lost the battle against computers. Tablebases have "guaranteed" optimal play by computers in the endgame. Opening books have removed much of the computational burden in the opening. (It's MUCH easier to generate move or position lists for the first ten moves and index them than it is to compute them on the fly.) ...


3

Humans will never again be able to defeat computers at chess. We're finding the limits of humans while computers and algorithms are only getting better and better.


3

Coming from a machine learning background, although this sounds like a supervised learning task, do not expect any decent results. Most players today use the computer to analyze positions and prepare quite deep with the engines. So the distinction there is lost in most medium to high level game play. Also, simply knowing whether a game was played by a ...


3

As far as I know, every chess playing program combines a depth-limited search of the game tree with a heuristic algorithm to estimate the favorability of each position. There's a tradeoff between using a cheaper heuristic allowing more positions to be evaluated and using a sophisticated heuristic on fewer positions. Humans play in more or less the same way, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible